The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. M. Shalini, GP FOR SERVI() :S-lll Counsel for the Respondent: The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO L.P.A No.l2 oF 2025 JUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice p.Sam Koshy) The matter was taken up for admission after it was registered as Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard Mr. M.Shalini leamed Govemment pleader for Services III for the appellant. perused the record. J The instant appeal has been filed against the order passed by the leamed Single Bench in c.c.No.207g <tt 2023 dated 05.08.2025

4. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Bench in the contempt case in its operative paragraph has held as under: " Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that vide interim orders dated 04.0g.2023, this Court had only directed to pay the salary as per her entitlement as there is no severance of service of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was under unauthorized absence till 06.06.2022, when she submitted her joining report, thereafter it was the -..1 2 duty of the respondents to extract work' by giving posting orders and instead, t 1 initiated disciplinary proceedings and dt pendency of the dlsciplinary proceedings entitled to subsistence allowance, respondents have failed to make the I Therefore, the respondents are directed the payment of subsistence allowance t petitioner within a period of one (1) monttr 'om her :y have 'ing the ;he was ut the ayment. o make to the rom the date of receipt of a copy of this order itt d if the same is not complied with, the responde r s would be liabte for Contempt Proceedings and I deems it fit and proper to grant liber:, petitioner to challenge the proceedings salaries to the petitione/'. is Court to the Cenying

5. The contempt petition arose out of a pendirr writ petition i-e., W.P.No. 17983 of 2023, wherein interim order vas passed on

04.08.2023. The interim order so passed by the :arned Single Bench is again reproduced here undcr: "Howcver, in the meantime, since tl't re is no severance cf service of the petitior er, the respondents are directed to pay the sall y to the petitioner as per her entitlement. The pay r ent shall be made within a period of four (04) w: rks from the date of receipt of this order." 3

6. The writ petitioner before the writ Court i.e., Ms. N. Haripriya got appointed as a Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO) on 09/10.01.2018. It is said that after having worked for some time from 05.07 .2019 onwards, the writ petitioner went on unauthorized absence after having initially obtained sanction for leave on 05.07.2019 and 06.07.2019 and she remained absent from dutv continuouslv till 06.06.2022 7 . Meanwhile, for the unauthorized absence, the Department thought it fit for initiating disciplinary proceedings and for which a charge memo was also issued on 08.03.2022. After the charge memo was issued, the writ petitioner reported for duty on

06.06.2022. However, the appellant/Department did not extract any, work from the writ petitioner in the light of the pending disciplinary proceedings. Since even after reporting fbr duty, the appellant/Department was not extracting work from the writ petitioner nor was she being paid the salary

8. The writ petition i.e., W.P.No. 17983 of 2023 was filed seeking for an appropriate direction to the respondents to accept the joining and to grant salary. It was in the said writ petition that an !--\ -.--l 4 ..1 interim order was also sought for before the learnel Single Bench for an interim direction directing the State to rel:i se the salary. It was in this context that the interim prayer of tht rrit petitioner was allowed, which is already reproduced in the ear i :r-paragraph.

9. The said order was not complied with and wbi 'h led to filing of the contempt case i.e., C.C.No.2078 of 2023. 1l e respondents were noticed and called upon to explain as to why c: ttentpt should not be drawn and alter hearing the parties, the - cn'ble Single Bench has disposed of the contempt proceedings wit L the direction that has been already reproduced in the initial pa: graph of this I 0. From thc lactual matrix that is culled out, u 1 lisputedty the writ petitioner was on the rolls of the Department rs an MpDO. She had obtained sanction for leave for two days i., ., 05.07.2019 and 06.07.2019. However, she did not report back [,r duty and is said to have remained under continuous unauthcr zed absence. Meanwhile, the disciplinary proceedings were issu; I by issuance of charge memo on 08.03.2022. Immediately on r:ceipt of the charge memo, the writ petitioner gave her joining t r 06.06.2022, 5 from which time the respondents were not giving any duty to the petitioner nor were they treating her as an employee on the rolls of the Department. I l. It goes without saying that so far as an employee is concemed, the fact that the employer has initiated disciplinary proceedings itself is sufficient to establish that the employee was on the rolls of the employer. No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an already discharged or removed employee. ln the said context, the next question that needs to be appreciated is, if the employee is considered to be on the rolls and is flacing the disciplinary proceedings, what would be the status of the employee and the status could be only to either the employee facing the disciplinary proceedings has to be treated as under suspension for which an order has to be passed under Rule 10 of the Service Rules, but if not the employee for all practical purposes would be treated as on duty. There cannot be a third option available pending the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the status of an employee. It was this fact which was taken note of by the learned Single Bench when it was observed in the course ofpassing of the ,4 ./ 5 interim order that there is no severance of serv. c J of the writ ...1 petitioner and it was in this backdrop that the leamec Single Bench ordered for at least paying the subsistence al[,) vance to the employee with which she may sustain, pending tlrr writ petition and also pending the disciplinary proceedings. In lre opinion of this Bench, the said observation of the learned Sing[r Bench metes the ends of justice and also stands ratified by tr: decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C,Al T. M.PAUL ANTHONY vs BHARA'I GOLD MINES -TD., AND ANOTHERI wherein it was held by the Hon'ble i rpreme Courl that no employee pending the disciplinary procee iings can be deprived ofthe payment of subsistence allowance

12. In the instant case, from the contentions ma<tt by the State Counsel, the services of the petitioner were nevet placed under suspension, pending the disciplinary proceedings ar< there is also no dispute so far as the petitioner having reported fo: luty after the issuance of the charge memo and that she had relt ,rted back to 'AIR 1999 SC 1416 .) .7 7 seryrce ot 06.06.2022. The Department could had immediately either placed her under suspension pending the disciplinary proceedings or could had given her a joining and extracted work and paid salary. The Department took neither of the options available and continued with the disciplinary proceedings. Surprisingty, even after the interim order was passed, the Department still did not think it proper to comply with the order, rather the authorities of the State Govemment subjected the interim order to its own scrutiny and took a stand on 12.10.2023 not to comply with the order and rejected the claim of the writ petitioner. This action on the part of the authorities of the State Government definitely is not appreciable. Though the said fact is not a point for consideration before this Bench at this juncture in this appeal, the order passed in the contempt case is dated 05.08.2025 and the order was to be complied forthwith, which again till date has not been complied with though more than two and half months have been passed has not been honoured and the instant LpA has now been filed questioning the order of compliance made in the contempt 8 \. \l -- - {_f-_s

13. The writ petition as it is, is pending considerat rn. The State ! ought to had taken all necessary steps in either t;l allenging the interim order or seeking modification of the in r rim order or seeking review of the interim order. None of thes: options have been resorted to by the State. In the said circurs .ances, if the contempt Courl taking into consideration the factue I matrix of the case has disposed of the contempt case with only L direction to ensure compliance, we do not find any good grounc made by the State forcing us to hold that the order passed by the r < ntempt Court to be either erroneous or contrary to law. We are urlher of the view that under Rule 2l of the Contempt Rules, thr lourt has the power to pass such appropriate orders for doing sub:;t rntial justice. In the instant case also, it is onty an endeavour mad: by the Court to ensure that its earlier interim order passed in the i rit petition is honoured. For this reason also, we do not intend to ,rterfere with the irnpugned order.

14. Thus, the Letters Patenr Appeal faits and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --_- _::::=<::::l-:--*ix.:1:= 9 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. s .V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT RE GISTRA //TRUE COPY// To,

1. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|||' High Court Qr Hyderabad. IOUT]

2. Two CD CoPies Kam/sa SECTION OFFICER e State of Telangana at I HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 JUDGMENT LPA.No.12 of 2025 ,'.. \) I I iri' ?0?5 :lli a ,i' DISMISS!NG THE LPA ,a^ Ir q a"