The High Court · 2025

petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to file i) copy of the lo 5 permit the Respondent 2 of Special Officer' APSHCL dt 10 03 2010' ii) Lr.No.5040/S0(H)/RR/MBNR/2010 Copy of Lr.No.Vig(4)/4520/RR/2010 of Managing Director' A P State Housing Corporation Ltd.' dt 15 05 2010' iii) Copy of Lr'No 1021/SO(H)/RR&MBNRl202O Special Officer/Enquiry Officer' Ranga Reddy' dt 11'2011 pertains to enquiry report, iv) Copy of G O Rt No '107 Housing (U&|AY) Department' dt 06 06 2007' v) Copy of the Circular No 5612/INDIRAMMA/E&P/2006 of MD' APSHCL' dt.18.062007, vi) Copy of the Circular NoAl/5128/2008 of MD' APSHCL' dt.'13.08.2008, vii) copv of Lr'No F1212859 tFinl2O}7 of MD' APSHCL' d1.28.05.2009, viii) Copy of G'O Rt'No'166' Housing {RH A1) Department regarding cancellation of G O Rt No 166' dt 01 08 2009 decentralization in the payment procedures and designation of Tahsildar' Mandal Parishad Development officer'andanotherMandalLevelofficerasMandalHousingofficers(MHo's)for supervision, and recommending p ix) Copy of Enquiry Notice No. i dt.20.05.2011, x) Job Chart of Ass counter affidavit_ ayment under INDIRAMMA housing programme, 021ISO(H)/RR/|\/BNR/201.1 of Enquiry Officer. t. Engineers as additional material papers in the I.A. NO: 10F 2017 MP. NO:1856 oF 2017 Between: \uv.v,

1. Telangana State Housing Corporation Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, " H19,! 9ali, Himaylarhnas;r, Hyde;;b;;-'- ' '. ' [?:gfl'l:ctor' Telangbna siate Housing corporation Ltd., R.R. District, tir%T,.:t D irector' rera n gana state Housi ns c o rporation : i,51 Ri{"Jt.",.i:f "il'fr :F;;,i""%tiiUl'96^4.ldi,.;i[I?9ilfl,?[:"Bii?",!,"":Eln"goJo..po,ution . ktd,R R Districi Lakidi_ki_pooi, H;;;r;;;,",,- b 1gald of Directors of Tetangdna SiriJiiJ.IJiio co, g' i " " g bi,;;t. ;, is iEi: u'';;'8:[i'[,li #iiT:$; 1r' b%' ] it # ; iSS[B:a .' ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS NO.2,3,4,5 & 6 AND

1. A.Mahipal Reddv. S/o l,"ffi #;sl3;*r#ffi r,ilix'tffr*,rt"Jiilsis:,ir*tr,,l11 colony' Tandur' Vikarab 2 The State of Telangana, uou"ing--Depii,iu'ni' fu,ungrna secretariat, Hvo"rrfleJlv .Rep. by its Special Chief Sr to Government, ...REspoNDENT/pETr,oNER ...RESpONDENT/RESpONDENT No.1 Petition under section .r 5 r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the order passed dt- 22-02-2017 0n stay of recovery of the amount from the petitioner in Wp.No. 5925 ot 2017. Counset for the petitioner: SRI NAYAKAWADT RAMESH Counset for the Respondent No.1: Cp ron iOij's'i-r,ic counser for the Responde-nt Nos.2 ro eisHiiinrlrl REDD' MALLARA',. sc FoR TELANGANA HousrNG cbCpciiii-ribi[, ",". The Court made the following: ORDER i d HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA SIRIT PETITION No. 5925 0F 2017 ORDER: Petitioner questions the order dated l8'O1'2017 of the 2nd respondent whereby and whereunder he was dismissed from service with immediate effect together with recovery of Rs. i0,63,180/ for the irregularities committed by him in implementation of Indiramma Housing Programme at Basheerbad (M) of Ranga Reddy District' The crisp case of petitioner is that he was issued 2. charge memo dated 24'O9'2O|O alleging that he released beneficiaries towards old payment of Rs.6,58,21O/- to 30 houses; released payment of Rs' 1O,74,620 l- to 62 beneliciaries without grounding the construction of houses which is in violation of Rule 2O(a) of APCS (CC&A) Rules' 1991 (for short' 'the RulesJ. It is stated, the charge memo had noL mentioned the names of proposed witnesses' He submitted representation d.ated. 21.12.201O to the 5e respondent to furnish the details of cases, such as narnes of benefrciaries, village and the amount paid to them. The 5ft respondent furnished certain information' He submitted written defense statement on 06'06'2011 to the 3.d respondent clearly stating the payments made, details of 'l t t l I ; 2 2o(1o)(a) of the stages of houses, etcetera According to petitioner, the Enquiry Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule Rules, AS per which, oral and documentary evidence by which articles of charges are propgsed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of disciplinary authority. Based on such a report, the 3.d respondent uzde Memo dated 77.O5.2O72 for which, petitioner submitted explanation on 06.06.2012 stating that on the instructions and report of MHOs. only, he generated payment release orders; all the payments were transferred to the individual beneficiaries, accounts and no benefrciar5r disputed acknowledgment of payment, hence, hxing responsibility on him is not correct. 2.1 It is stated, the Chief Engineer, Telangana State Housing Corporation Limited uide Memo dated O5.O9.2O 15 communicated the Enquiry Report and cared for the explanation from petitioner. It is alleged, Chief Engineer is not the disciplinary authority either for imposing minor or major penalty as per Annexure-Ill of A.p. State Housing Corporation Limited Employees, Service Rules. In respect of minor penalty, the 3.d respondent and in respect of major penaity, the 2nd respondent is the competent authorit5r. Hence, the memo dated O5.O9.2O15 is liable to be held as bad in law. Further, there are J ,f; discrepanciesinthefindingsoftheEnquiryReportofthe4ft respondent to the findings recorded in Memo dated 05 09 2015 of the Chief Engineer. Based on the above two reports' tLLe 2-d respondent issued the impugned proceedings penalty of dismissal from service together with recovery of Rs. 1o,63,180/-, hence, the same may be set aside' emphasizes -imposing petitloner. This Court by order dated 22 02 '2017 ' w}:,lle 3. clirecting learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation to get instructions on the issue whether door to door enquiry as recorded in the report of the Enquiry Officer was conducted with prior notice to petitioner and in his presence' granted stay of recovery of the amount mentioned in the proceedings' The said order was extended thereafter until further orders' The General Manager (Admn') of the 2'd respondent 4. Corporation filed counter stating that the Hon'ble MLA' Tandur Constituency made certain allegations against petitioner in making payments to beneficiaries at Bahseerabad Viilage and Mandal; accordingly, M/ s Pragna Research and Consultancy Services conducted enquiry and noticed certain irregularities in making payments to the Lreneficiaries to a tune of Rs.86,03,768/- at Basheerabad Village and Mandal; after that' { l t I i l I r $ t I 4 verihed the Special Officer (Housing), Ranga Reddy visited and the records and noticed the irregularities to a tune of Rs.90,28,628/-; accordingly, articles of charge were issued to petitioner along with four other employeqs; out ol_ that, petitioner was alleged to have involved in an amount of Rs.17,32,830 /-. T].e Enquiry Officer and presenting Officer were appointed as per the CCA Rules. The Enquiry Officer issued notice on 2O.OS.2OL1 which was acknowledged by petitioner on 23.05.2011; petitioner attended the enquiry and after following due process of law, the Enquiry Officer submitted report which was also communicated to petitioner. During the course of enqu1ry, petitioner participated and aiso signed in the benehciary-wise statement. The enqurry report was also communicated to petition er uid.e show cause notice dated 17.05.2012 of the District Collector for which he submitted explanation dated O6.06.2012. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority, after careful examination of the case with reference to the frndings of the Enquiry offrcer, explanation of petitioner and remarks of project Director (Housing), came to a conclusion that petitioner committed grave irregularities to a tune of as per G.O.Ms. No. 33, dated Rs.1O,63,180/-, hence, 26.05.1999 under Rule 2 of Chapter III (Annexure_Ill), maJor ) tl ) punishment oi dismissal from servtt re was awarded with irnmediateeffecttogetherwithrecoveryofRslO'63'180/-and issued the imPugned Proceedings' It is stated, due to certain hnancial irregularities' 4.1 petitioner was placed under suspen sior uide proceedings dated 2a.O4.2O11 and subsequently, he was reinstated into service andpostedasMlCinRangaReddypendingdisciplinary proceedings and issued orders dated 08 02'2O13' I t is the contention of respondent Corporation that 4 .2 petitioner is trving to take shelter of violation of Rules only to escape from the punishment awarded for the lapses committed by him. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner also involved in another case on the allegation of irregularities committed in maintenance of cement godown by making no entries in the cement stock register and benehciary payment regisler at Ya1al Mandal of Ranga Reddy District' thus' he failed to discharge his legitimate duties and the disciplinary authority awarded punishment of censure uide proceedings dated t3.o7.2016. It is also stated, petitioner uide letter dated 4.g 2C..12.2OLO requested the Project Director to furnish the details of the case and supply the necessary documents' accordingly' I I I n 6 the Project Director supplied the necessary documents uide Memo dated 30.10.201O which clearly shows that he received all the documents. It is further contencled that the Enquiry Officer/Special Officer(H) conducted door to door enquiry in the presence of petitioner in accordance with the Rules and Procedure contemplated in law and furnished the list of irregular beneficiaries IDs. to him and the report was communicated to him on lT.OS.2O12 and petitioner submitted explanation dated O6.O6.2012 duly denying the charges, but he never raised any complaint verbally or in writing during ancl/or after enquiry with regard to non-participation and not giving opportunity to examine the witnesses. petitioner also remained silent all these five years and when major punishment was imposed for the lapses committed, he is showing false allegations to escape from punishment. After receipt of enquiry report, the matter was referred to the Project Director (H) concerned to offer his specific remarks; the project Director also communicated remarks to petitioner stating that he released payments to a tune of Rs.lO,63,1g0/_ irregularity to 6O beneficiaries of Basheerab ad uide memo dated OS.O9.2O1S however, petitioner failed to submit explanation. Therefore, after careful examination of the report and remarks, the competent 1 authoritY petitioner. has taken a decision of imposing the penalry on It is the contention of the Corporation that 4.4 petitioner is suppressing the facts and trying. to misiead this Court stating that payments in question were made based on the recommendations of the Mandal Housing Officer' but he failed to producc the evidence in support thereof' lf he released he payments as such, he could have submitted some material to the Enquiq' Ofhcer during the enquiry along with his explanation br-lt he failed to do so' Learned counsel for petitioners Sri N Ramesh relies 5. on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satgendra Singh v. Stcrte of U'P' (Civil Appeal No' of 2024) ar.d Anant R.Kutkorrnits.Y.P.EducationSocietglandcontendsthatthe Enquiry Officcr failed to examine the witnesses and record their evidence, hence, the enquiry procedure is totally vitiaLed and non-est in the eye of law' He contends that trnquiry Ofhcer faiied to conduct enquiry in accordance with thc established procedure. Per contra' learned Standing Counsel for the 6. Corporation Sri M Kiran Reddy submits that Enquiry Ofhcer '(2013) 6 scc 515 t I t 4 8 n conducted enquiry in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference. Further, he argges that silce the competent authority i.e. the 2,d respondent directed the Chief Engineer ukle note order dated 2O.Og.2O15 to -communicate the Enquiry report to petitioner, he did so. In view of the same, the contention of petitioner that Chef Engineer is not competent to communicate the Enquiry report cannot be authorit5z accepted.

7. Having considered the material on record and having heard learned counsel on either side, it rs evident that the Corporation based on the complaints from the then MLA, Tandur Constituency that certain financial irregularities have taken place in execution of Indiramma Housing programme, got conducted enquiry and imposed major punishment of dismissal from service on petitioner apart from directing recovery of Rs. 1O,63,18O/-. In this regard, the main argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that enqulry was not conducted in door enquiry of does not contain the dehils of beneficiaries; arrd no oral and documentary evidence by which articles of charges are proposed to be proved were produced by on behalf of disciplinary authorit5r. On the contrary, the with law; there rs no door to charge memo beneliciaries; accordance It I' It :a-\ 9 contention of respondent Corporation is that enquiry was conducted in accordance with 1aw during the coursc of u'hich' door to door enquiry was conducted in the presence of petitioner, he u'as furnished the list of irregular benehciaries IDs, petitioner also signed on the beneficiary-wise statements' After completion of enquiry, report was communicated to him on lT.oS.2ol2forrr,hichhesubmlttedexplanationon(J6.06.2ol2. Thereafter,basedontheEnquiryReport'theProjectDireclorre- cxaminecl the matter in detail and' uide memo dated 05 09 20i5 communicatedhisremarkstopetitioner,butthelatterhasnot hled anY exPlanation' As could be seen from the pleadings' petitioner 8. never made any complaint verbally or in writing during the course of or afler the enquiry rvith regard to non-participation and not giving opportunity to examine the witnesses' If he was not allowed to examine the witnesses' he ought to have raised therewith in his exPlanatlon an objection in connection the show cause notice or to the submitted on 06'06'2012 to enquiry report and even after the memo dated 05'O9'215 was served on him. He maintained silence for ail these hve years and when major punishment was imposed' as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, he started finding fault with t { q 10 the enquiry process itself. This conduct of petitioner is not appreciable, hence, his case cannot be accepted. 9. Coming to the judgme nt in Satgendra Sing,s case (surpa), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner, paragraphs i3 and 16 read as under: (: "

13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a t:JtH:::"#T:::: major punishment is mand Roop sinsh N?si, h,,t,:n;"ffi; Jhalq u. State of Gujarat and Another "

76. In the case of Nirmala J. Jhala14, this Court held that evidence recorded in a preliminary inquiry cannot be used for a regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it and the opportunity to inquiry is nor given ;;""*, J;fl:;,;J:::,i:"::"-,",o "42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern Railway AIR 1960 SC 9921, held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the afleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis ofthe order of findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held.

43. Similarly in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India IAIR 1964 SC 1854) a Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a similar view held that preriminar5z inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by ihe provisions of Arl icle 3l I {2) of the Constitution nf rn.t;, D--r:_:___ , herd ex parte, ro. rt r" -...if,T.":Ji':,,"x,"::"r#H.11.:: though usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought from the government servart e\/en at such an inquiry. But at that stage, f' hehasnorightlobeheardaStheinquiryismerelyforthesatisfactiotr of the Government as to t'hether a regular inquiry must t'e held The Court lurther held as under: (AIR p 1862' pam 12) 12.... Therc must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries ancl it is only rvhen the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government scrvant one of the three malor punishments indicated in Article 311 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that article [' nor prior Io I lral ].

44. ln Norallan DattatraAa Ramterthakhar u' State of Maharashlra (1997) i SCC 299 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 152: AIR i997 SC 21481 this Court dealt \\'ith the issue and held as under: a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted afLet issue of charge-sheet' The pretiminary enquiry is onl]' to find out whether disciphnary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules the preliminary enquiry importance and' whether preliminary enquiry sas heldstrictlyinaccordancewithlaworbyobsewingprinciplesofnatural justice of (sic) nor, remains of no consequence-"

45. tn vier'v of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not assoclated {'ith it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given- Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice 10 In Ancrnt R- Kulka'zti (supra)' the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para 17 as under: " The purpose of holding an enquiry against anY person is not only with view to establish the charges levelled against him or to impose a penalty, but is also conducted with ttr'e object of such an enquiry recording the truth of the matter' and in that sense' the outcome of an enquiry ma)' either result in establishing or vindicating his stand' and henceresultjrlhisCexoneration.Therefore,fairactiononthepartof the authority concerned is a paramouut necessity"' { i I I 12 f,r

11. Since in the case on hand, it is held that enquiry rvas conducted duly examining the beneficiaries and after following the procedure in vogue, the above judgments are not required to be made applicable to the facts of the case. 12. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner, hence, is of the opinion that Writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13 COSTS 14 closed. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand SD/-A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR SSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1 2 3 4 PSK. BS //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFIGER One CC to SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOUSING, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUIJ One CC to SRI KIRAN REDDY MALLARAPU, SC FOR TELANGANA HOUSING CORPORATION IOPUC] TWo CD Copies W ,g'r HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 ORDER WP.No.5925 o12017 ( (: J ,.J L1 --"::'-' - ' - :..\. 1B StP ?s6 l< frE.SF^rC i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q vI