The Jud qment of the Aoex Court in P.V.Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housinq Board, ated

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D' LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE The Court made the following: ORDER r r t T '1 It i- i I ,i,i I_t r'l I t I HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA RIT PETITIO No. 39 F2 OR DER: Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and rearned Government preader for Prohibition and Excise, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2.7 as under: toner a roach dth Co s a r "...to issue a Writ, Order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for an alleged incident pertaining to the year 2OtO_2Ot2 Vide Charge Memo. in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 244/2013 dt: 21.72.20L7 and Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 405/20L3, dt: 2.2.2018 as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay, contrary to the time by the Government for in G.O.Ms.No. 679, dt: completion 1.11.2008 and also contrary to the Judgment of Hon,ble Court in W.p.No. 5095/2023, dt: 22.2.2023 deemed to have dropped and in Rule 20 TSCS(CC&A) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution limit stipulaied of enquiries ( 2 SN, J rp ll.i9-1 .2021 of Irdia and quash the same and to pass such order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may fit ard proper in the circumstances oF the c.ase."

3. It is spercific case of the petitioner that tre petit oner was appointed as lr:nior Assistant on 26.05.1987 ard was promoted as Prohibition & Excise Sub-lnspectot on 36.6t;.201;2. When the petitioner was working as Prohibition & Excise Sub-ln:;pector in Khammant District, ACB officials had conductr:d raidr,:s on the offices of Liquor Syndicates of Khamnram 'l own on 16/77.12.20L1, in which, some documents relating to bribes/mamoc ls stated to have been paid to Police a rd Excise Department C)fficials. Therefore, ACB addressed a letter to the Governme nt to take disciplinary action against the Excise Officials lt:veling allegations against the petitirtner stating that the petitioner had indulged in corrupt practice:;. Subs;equently, the Tribunal f'or Disciplinary proceedings had framed a charge against the petitioner vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.244 of 2013 dated 2t.t2.).017 and 405 of 2013 dated C)2.02.2018. It is further the case of the petitioner that the ACB had found no incriminat ng material or evidence against the gretitioner, however, ACB initiated the disciplinary proceedings a(.tainst the J SN, J wp 3ll9l 2023 petitioner and charge dated 21.12.2017 and been issued to the petitioner by the Trib.unal

02.02.2018 had for Disciplinary proceedings, Telangana State, Hyderabad and the same had been pending as on date. It is further the case of the petitioner that due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the respondents are withholding full retirement and pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by.filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RE CORD.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in respect of Tribunal enquiry Case No.244 of 2O13, dated 21.12.2017 and Tribunal enquiry Case No.4O5 of 2013, dated 02.02.2O1g registered against the petitioner herein in the year 2O13, a charge had been framed by the Tribunal Disciplinary proceedings (TDp), dated 21.12.2OL7 and O2.O2.2OLA respectively against the petitioner and TEC Nos.244 of 2O13 and 4O5 of 2013 had been pending as on date without any progress. \ \ 4 SN. J I ll9.l 2021

5. Learned r:ounsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that although the petitioner retired from service, only provisiona! pension had been paid since then, and th€ entire pensaonary benefits i' e', full service pension, (:ommutation, and gratuity have been wrongfully withheld without any justification and therefore, the charge itself needs to be quashed, and the petitioner's case should be considered for release of entire pensionary benefits. In I;upport of petitioner's case, learned counsel 6. appearingl on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the judgrnent of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 29.OL.2}1Ll passed in W'P.No.870 of 2O2! which refer to Charge Memos in TEC LL6/2O13, L36/2OL3 and L72/2OL3 pertaining to the same incident in different places of work related to the year 2O12 (liquor syndicate cases) in respect of the petitioner there under in W'P'No'87O of 2O2L and contends that the petitioner is entitled for the similar relief as extended to the said petitioner in W.P.No.87O ol 2O2L vide order, dated 29.O1.2O2L' f SN, J wp 33193 2023

7. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf ot the respondents on the other hand contends that the respondents may be directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of six (O6) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and if the proceedings are not conctuded for any reason within the said period of six (O6) months by the respondents, the respondents may be directed to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

8. The Jud qment of the Aoex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N. Housinq Board, ated 08.O8.2OO5 r oorted in 20 cc 636 n articular a r 6&11 is observed as under:-

6. Mr. Prabhakar also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his case. It is stated in para 14 of the affidavit that the respondent the mala fide intention issued the oresent charoe memo aoainst the aDDellant even thouoh the alleoed ncident of issuance of sale deed was of the vear 199O, which was 1O vear orior to the issuance of charqe memo and that very reason for issuing charge memo was that the appellant could be detained from promoting to the post of Chief Engineer of the Housing Boa rd . '1 6 SN- J \p l -i l()-l 20ll

11. Under the circumstances, we are of the oPirrion that further v'rith the allowing the respondent to Proce ed departmental Procee ding s at this distance of timcr will be very prel udicial to the appellant. KeePing a higher er charges of corru on and t officia I und governmon bearable me nt,al aqonY disputed integrity would cause un rned. and Cistress to the officer conce t f I t r ary to :1raw the At this stage, it is ne cess d to the enquirY. The aPPt.:llant had CU rt.rin and to PUt an en n accour t of the h and more o a lrea dY suffered enoug f fact, tt'e mental disciPlin ary Proceedi ngs. As a matter o he aPPellant due to the Prrotracted agorry and sufferings more than the ld be much disciPlinarY P roceedings wou mitted bY the For the mistakes com punishment. rocedure for initiatin'l the disciPlinarY department proceed ngs, the aPPellant should not be rn ade to s u ffer. in the P Th e 9 below held that oroceed inq s duetod la t a c t n he Courts havea u men uasht e i) The Court of A.P' vs' A'Rajeswara Reddy reported in :2O10(3) ALD Page 5O1 (DB) ii) M'V.B.lilani Vs' Union of India and Others reported in 2OO6 (5) SCC Page 88' iii) State of Punjab and Others Vs' Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 57O' \ 7 SN. J \vp_33393 2023 iv) Secretary Forest Department Vs' Abdur Rasul Chowdury reported in 2OO9 (7) SCC Page 3o5' v) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs' 2Ot2 (11) SCC Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported 'n s65.

10. Th Divis nB o u me dated 26.04 .2 13 Da ssed in W. P.No.2 826 of 2O13 and the a Divi 25 6.2 1 d c w.P 10 I 20 r s 24 30 n ln s c oa rou s t ha e its If. lO44l a r e 11 h Ta e n s rne nre rd em da 2 .L2. t7 nd .o2. 1 db NI d Nos.2 44.ot 2O13 and r ln 4O5 of 20L3, reqistered aqainst the T e itio r r 13 the f ct t the r s En as Nos. 2 13 nd 4O of 2O tn he 44 r2 25 8 SN. J r p I ll9l l02l this Court ines that D si nce the a I leq ation s . leveled rrived at hol in the vear 2O13 had not ino the oetitio n er as ouil aoainst the petitio ner proved as on date in the vear 2O25, and there ts no co n clu sio the alleoed in cid ents that took ol ce in the vear 2o13. on the subiect issue even wtthout int e vear 2025, the pet itio n er cannot be put to anv further ment al aq onv and sufferinq t thas le noth ,of time. nq reac hed finali L2 Tak int consl eratio a) The aforesaid facts and carcumstances of the case' b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf of the resPondents' c) The of the Various Courts en listed below:- i) The observations in the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated W.P.No.87O of 2O21 vide ord er, dated 29.01 .2O2L, ii) The judgment of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board, dated 9 SN, J lvp l-ll9l 2021

08.08.2005 reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636(referred to and extracted above) iii) The judgment of Division Bench of this court/ dated 25.O4.2013 passed in W.p.No.2826 of 2OL3. iv) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.06.2013 passed in W.p.Nos.LL294, LO3O7, \ \ LO44L & 10488 of 2O13. v) The Court of A.P. Vs. A.Rajeswara Reddy reported in 2O1O(3) ALD Page sOl (DB) vi) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2OO6 (5) SCC page 88. vii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 57O. viii) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdury reported in 2OO9 (7) SCC Page 3O5. ix) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2O12 (11) SCC

565. The Writ Petition is allowed as oraved for and the Charoe memos dated 2!.L2.2OL7 and O2.O2.2018 framed bv the T DP aqainst the oetitioner in resoe t of TEC a l iF F t0 SN. J rvp .l -:3 9l 2023 Nos.2 44 of 2013 and 4O5 of 2013 are a ccord ino lv o ua shed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Mis(:ella ''reous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUTY RE I SEC:TION OFFICER ') The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Developm ent Dep artment Secretanitt, The State of Telangana' Hyderabad The Commiss oner of Prohibition and Excise, State of Telangana. NamPal v, Hyderab; d . i6" s"inrtrw The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings Nampally, Hvderabe d. iGb;pi it Crmmissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal Division' Waranoa . One Ce 1o Sri D Linga Rao Advocate [OPU-C] i*o CCtio (ip for P"rohibrtion Excise, Hign Court for the Sitate of Telangana, at Hyderarbad [OUT] Two CD ()opit:s To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TJ tls w F F l r t r t r t HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:2710312025 ORDER WP.No.33393 of 2023 t:i..J' ' \ i:. i,I ?.? lttl 2$b ALLOWINGi THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO.STS ot -@ 9^4" t t