$ Anjqleylu v. consequently direct the

Petition under Section 151 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 Orders passed on dt. 18/08/2017 on Stay of Recovery of the amount from the Petitioner in W.P.No. 27597 of 2017. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay recovery of the amount as directed in the impugned Proceedings viz., Procdgs No. 4520/TSHCL/Vig(1)/RR/2010-1 dated 18.01 .2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent - Managing Director of Telangana Stdte Housing Corporation Limited, Hyderabad pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass. such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. S TH Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR HOUSING Counsel for the Respondent No.2: KIRAN REDDY MALLARAPU (SC FOR TELANGANA HOUSING CORPORATION) The Court made the following: ORDER -') HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A oF 20 ORDER: Petitioner questions the order dated 18.01.2017 of the 2nd respondent - Managing Director of Telangana State Housing Corporation Limited, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder he was dismissed from service with immediate effect apart from ordering recovery of Rs.43,ZO,SZS1- for the irregularities committed by him in implementation of Indiramma Housing Programme at Basheerbad (M) of Ranga Reddy District.

2. The crisp case of petitioner is that he was issued charge memo dated 24.O9.2O1O by the District Collector alleging that he released payment of Rs.32,98,6t51- to 152 beneficiaries towards old houses; released payment of Rs.27,66,1231- to 144 beneficiaries without grounding the construction of houses which is in violation of Rute 20(4) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for short, ,the Rules). In the Charge Memo,. it has'been stated that preliminary enquiry was conducted by M/s PRCS Agency, but however, copy of the Report was not furnished to him nor he was furnished with list of beneficiaries. In fact, it is alleged, preliminary Enquiry was made behind his back and also without my knowledge. Therefore, he made a request on ,l 'l r{ ')

30.10.201O to furnish the said documents. In the meantime, he was suspended from service by Proceedings dated 28.O4.2O1 1 of the District Collector/ Executive Director on the ground that he It had not submitted explanation. It is stated, petitioner was asked to attend the Enquiry on 24.O5.2OI1 by Notice dated 2O.O5.2O11, along with S/Sri N. Ganganna, Dy.EE (H), A. Mahipal Reddy, MIC, B. Sathriya, MIC and B. Sanjeeva Rao, AE. Petitioner was issued with Show Cause Memo dated 28-07.2OIO directing him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. In the said notice itself, the Managing Director appears to have come to the conclusion that he was guilty of the charges.

2.L Be that as it ffi?y, without furnishing any of the documents as requested and without conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer informed that enquiry was completed. None of the beneficiaries were examined, nor the houses have been inspected in his presence and the same is against the principles of natural justice. Basing on such an Enquiry Report, the District Collector/Executive Director has called for the Explanation of petitioner on the findings of the Enquiry Officer by Memo dated 17.O5.2O12 for which, he submitted explanation 'l on O4.O6.2OL2 pointing out that houses were constructed Ir J ;J during 2005-06 and it is not known when the Enquiry Officer inspected the houses and how he could come to the conclusion that these were old houses. It is also stated, he released the amounts to the beneliciaries directly as per the recommendation of the MHO (Mandal Housing Officer). The payments made to the beneficiaries are exactly as per the Field Verification Report submitted by the Mandal Housing Officer. As per the instructions issued by the Government, the procedure to be followed is that petitioner had to pass only on the Verification Report given by the Mandal Housing Officer which exactly he had done. According to petitioner, without considering his explanation in its proper perspective, he was imposed with major punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect apart from recovery of Rs. 43,2o,573/-by Proceedings dated 18.01.2017, impugned in this Writ Petition, of the Managing Director of the Corporation. It is not known how the above amount of Rs.43,2O,5731- had been arrived at by the Enquiry Officer.

3. By order dated I8.O8.2O17, this Court, while issuing notice before admission, granted interim stay of initiation of proceedings for recovery of the amount under ROR \ \ ,| t '^ '* t'''''t'' .,,1i 4 Act, for a period of six weeks. Subsequently' the said order was extended from time. to time. The 2nd respondent filed counter stating that 4. petitioner as Assistant Engineer while working at Basheerabad Village and Mandal, misappropriated Housing funds by releasing payments to old houses/houses not started under INDIRAMMA Phase-f to a tune of Rs.6O,64,738/-, therefore, Show Cause Notice dated 28.07.2010 was issued; after following due procedure, Articles of charges were framed against petitioner uide proceedings of the District Collector/Executive Director, APSHCL, Ranga Reddy dated 24'9'2OlO as per Rule 20 of the A.P.,Civit Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 199I. It is also stated, the then Hon'ble MLA, Tandur 4.L Constituency made certain allegations against petitioner in making pa5rments to beneficiaries at Bahseerabad Village and Mandal; accordingly, M/s Pragna Research and Consultancy Services conducted enquiry and noticed certain irregularities in making payments to the beneliciaries to a tune of Rs.86,O3 ,7681- at Basheerabad vitlage and Mandal and communicated the third party enquiry report to petitioner uide Project Director, APSHCL, Ranga Reddy District Memo dated \ \ . --.;..*1i.-;. :-:!iEeElil;i;t. - ,...*li}&+i*.',. I' I I 5 Ig-fi-2}10. Thereafter, the Special Officer, (Housing) Ranga Reddy visited and verified the records and noticed that irregularities committed to a tune of Rs.9O,28,625/-; accordingly, Articles of Charges were issued to petitioner along with four other employees who were involved in linancial irregularities to a tune of Rs.90,28,628/-. Out of the above said amount, petitioner was found to be responsible for fraud to the extent of Rs.60,64,7381-. It is submitted that Enquiry Oflicer and Presenting Oflicer were appointed as per the CCA Rules. The Enquiry Officer issued notice on 2O.O5.2OIl to petitioner and the same was acknowledged by petitioner; he attended the inquiry and after foltowing due procedure laid down, the Enquiry Oflicer submitted his report and the same was communicated to petitioner uide Show Cause Notice dated 17.O5.2O12 of the District collector/ED,. RR District. The Enquiry Officer cross examined the witnbss/beneficiaries in the presence of petitioner during the course of enquiry. Hence, the allegation made by petitioner is not correct and far from truth' Petitioner submitted explanation dated 04.06.2012. Further, the project Director, (Housing) submitted remarks on the findings of the Enquiry Report. The Disciplinary Authority after careful examination of the case with reference to the findings of Enquiry 1 \ \ 'l 'l t r 6 Officer and explanation of petitioner and remarks of the Project Director (Housing), Ranga Reddy District came to a conclusion that petitioner committed grave financial irregularities to a tune .of Rs.43,2O,5731-. It is submitted that as per service Rules of the Housing Corporation as per G.O.Ms.No.33, dated

26.05.1998 under Rule 2 of Chapter III (Annexure-Ill), major punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect together with recovery of Rs.43,2O,573/-was awarded by the f"a respondent vide proceedings dated 18.O1 .2017.

4.2 It is stated, petitioner is trying to take shelter under violation of Rules only to escape from the punishment awarded to him for the lapses committed by him. As per the circular instructions issued by the 2nd respondent from time to time, the AE has to personally supervise the execution process and ensure best quality of construction, as such petitioner is I responsible for the irregularities committed in execution of lndiramma Housing Programme in terms of the following Circular instmctions dated 13.O8.2008, L8.06.2OOT and

28.o5.2oo9. Petitioner is suppressing the facts and trying to mislead this court by stating that the payments in question were mzrde based on the recommendations of the Mandal Housing officer, but he failed to produce the evidence to that \ \ E 7 effect in his written explanation. If petitioner released the payments based on the recommendations of Mandal Housing Officer, he could have submitted the same material to the Enquiry Officer during the course of enquiry along with his explanation but he failed to do so. It is proved beyond doubt that petitioner misappropriated the funds meant for Weaker Sections of the Society. He never made any complaint verbally or in writing during the course or after enquiry with regard to non-participation and not giving opportunity to examine the witness; he kept quiet all these live years and when major punishment was impoSed on him for the lapses committed by him, he is showing false allegation to escape from the punishment. In view of the above facts, it is pleaded that Writ Petition may be dismissed with costs.

5. Petitioner also filed reply reiterating the averments in the writ affidavit, hence they are not reproduced here. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri M. Srikanth relies 6- on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satgendra Singh a. Stolte of A.P. (Civil Appeal No. of 20241 and Anant R. Kulkarni a. Y.P. Education Societgl and contends that the t- i '(zor:) 6 scc 5t5 \ b*. { { I I' 8 Enquiry Officer failed to examine the witnesses and record their evidence, hence, the enquiry procedure is totally vitiated and non-est in the eye of law. He contends that Enquiry Officer failed to conduct enquiry in accordance with the established procedure. 7 - Per contro., learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri M. Kiran Reddy submits that Enquiry Oflicer conducted enquiry in accordance with law which does not warrant any interference.

8. Having considered the material on record and having heard learned counsel on either side, it is evident that the Corporation based on the complaints from the then MLA, Tandur Constituency that certain financial irregularities have taken place in exeiution of lndiramma Housing Programme, got conduct.ed enquiry and imposed major punishment of dismissal from service on petitioner apart from directing recovery of Rs.43,20,573/-. In this regard, the main argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law; there is no door to door enquiry of beneficiaries; charge memo does not contain the details of beneficiaries; and no oral and documentary evidence by which articles of charges are proposed to be proved were produced by \ \ t 9 or on behalf of disciplinary authority. On the conttdrY, the contention of respondent Corporation is that enquiry was conducted in accordance with law during the course of which, door to door enquiry was conducted in the presence of petitioner, he was furnished the list of irregular beneficiaries IDs, petitioner also signed on the beneficiary-wise statements. After completion of enquiry, report was communicated to him on

17.O5.2O12 for which he submitted explanation on 04.06 -2012. g. As could be seen from the pleadings, petitioner never made any complaint verbally or in writing during the course of or after the enquiry with regard to non-participation and not giving opportunity to examine the witnesses. [f he was not allowed to examine the witnesses, he ought to have raised an objection in connection therewith in his, explanation submitted on O4.06.2OL2 to the show cause notice or to the enquiry report. He maintained silence'for all these five years and when major punishment was imposed, as rightly contended by the learned Standing counsel, he started finding fault with the enquiry process itself. This conduct of petitioner is not appreciable, hence, his case cannot be accepted. // 1 I hb*- l0

10. Coming to the judgment in Sojtgendrq. Stngr's cclse (surpa), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner, paragraphs 13 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 major punishment is. mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop singh Negi u. Punjab National Bank and others and Nirmala J. Jhala u. State of Gujarat and Another."

16. 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 cross-examine persons examined in preliminary inquiry is not given. Relevant extract thereof reads as under: - "42. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amalendu Ghosh v. North Eastern Railrval' 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 alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the 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. Similarlf in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 1854) a Constitution Bench of this court while taking a similar view held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Preliminary inquiry may be held ex parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of the Government though usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought from the government servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction \ of the Government as to whether a regular inquiry must be held. The bourt further held as under: (AIR p. 1862, parz.l2l -! I h t E_ "12.... There must therefore be no confusion between the two enquiries and it is only when the government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one of the three major punishments indicatbd in Article 31 1 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that article [, nor prior to thatl."

44. ln Naragan Dattatraga Ramterthakhar u. State of Maharashtra fi19971 I SCC 299:1997 SCC (L&S) 152: AIR 1997 SC 21481this Court dealt with the issue and held as under: u ... a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry importance and, whether preliminar5r enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice of (sic) nor, remains of no consequence." I t

45. In view of the above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the detinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not grven. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice." 1 1. In Anant R. Kulkarni (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 the object of such an enquiry recording the truth of the matter, and in that sense, the outcome of an enquiry may either result in establishing or vindicating his stand, and hence result in his c exoneration. Therefore, fair action on the part of the authority concerned is a paramount necessity". ,{ I \ \ t2

12. Since in the case on hand, it is held that enquiry was 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.

13. 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. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand

14. costs.

15. closed SD/- L. VIJAYA //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI M. SRIKANTH, Advocate 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOUSING, High Court SRI KIRAN REDDY MALLARAPU (SC CORPORATION ), Advocate IOPUC]

3. One CC to HOUSING 4. Two CD Copies MMT GJP MMT State of Telangana TELANGANA : e &:t.tt: To, l /-. HIGH COURT DATED:19/08/2025 i l I ; lf, ER l: I RDo WP.No.27597 of 2017 Ir Iitjti {t fI t; *1 \ ii i3- 0 I JAi| 20m (-, ( a' t'\ 7''7 ) I t i i t 1t. I t t1 t t I I ! T ,! 1 i iI! 1 I ; : DISMISS|NG THE WRIT PETITION &t, WITHOUT COSTS 1 Iii.: i &i .$. t t ; Sffi L. rESr,''