The High Court · 2024

(no relief is sought for by the appellant against respondent no.2 and is formally arrayed as per cause title of the writ petition) (R2 not necessary party) ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the order dated:2no February 2024 passed in Writ Petition Number 44393 of 2018 pending disposal of the instant Writ Appeal lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section '15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the order dated. 02nd February 2024 passed in Writ Petition. Number 44393 of 20't8, pending disposal of the instant Writ Appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. FARHAN AZAM KHAN (SC FOR TSWB) Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI V VENKATA MAYUR Counsel for the Respondent NO.2: SRI D. SUOARSHAN SC FOR WAQF BOARD The Court made the following: JUDGMENT h- i I I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT APPEAL No.73 OF 2O2S JUDGMENT a per the t{o^ t)te sn .tus,,ce .\bht^and Kumat shawh) Aggrieved by the order, dated O2.O2.2024, passed in W.P.No.44393 of 2018 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appea,l is hled.

2. Heard Sri Farhan Azam Khan, learned Standing Counsel appea-ring for the appellant. 3 t Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant had contended that respondent No.1 was working as Senior Assistant with the respondent-Organisation. While he was working with the respondent-Organisation, he has participated in one-day strike on 04.05.2015, which was called by the General SecretarJz of Telangana State Wakf Board Employees Welfare Association for non- payment of salaries for the month of April, 2O15. The appellant has construed the sarne as misconduct and initiated disciplinary proceedings. After conducting the ) AKS,J & LNA,J rl .,A. No.73 of 2025 enquiry and for the proven misconduct in the enquiry, the Telangana State Wakf Board has unanimously passed a resolution on 14.05.2018 to terrninate the servlces ol respondent No. 1, as he ',r,as indulged 1n irregularities with reference to the survey of land belonging to Wakf Institution Eidgah and graveyard, Timmapur loca-lity, Khanpur Maldal, Adilabad District. AccorCingly, the appellant has issued consequential proceedings of terminationTremoval against respondent No.1 on 13.06.2018.

4. Aggrieved by said orders of termination f rernov a7, respondent No. t has approached this Court by hling W.P.No.44393 ol 2018 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the orders of removal on the ground that the punishment of termination / removal is shockingly disproportionate to the allegation levelled against respondent No. 1 and directed the appellant to consider his case afresh and impose a lesser punishment other than remova-l from Er::t .ii{rr.' ______-_-,_.--___-.4 l l servlce, without appreciating any of the contentions 3 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.73 of 2O25 raised by the appellant

5. Learned Standing Counsel had further contended that when once the trnquiry Ofhcer has submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against respondent No. 1 as 'proved', the appellant was justifred in imposing a punishment of removal. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that due [o participation of respondent No. I in the strike, much rnconvenience was caused to the appellant- Organisation. Hence, the learned Single Judge could not have interfered with the orders of punishment imposed by the appellant. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order, dated O2.O2.2O24 passed in W.P.No.44393 of 2018 and allow the Writ Appeal.

6. This Court, having considered the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, is \ of the view\hat respondent No.l has participated in the strike on O4,O5.2015, along with several other 4 AI(S.J & LNA,J W.A. No 73 of 2025 employees. However, the appellant has imposed a punishment of removal only on respondent No. 1. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the orders of termination / removal on the ground that the punishment of removal is shockingly rlisproportionate to the charges levelled against respondent No. 1. Moreover, in respect ol the alleged irreguiarities with reference to the Wakf Boarcl properties is concerned, the Enquiry Ofhcer exonerated him from the said charge. The only charge which is proved against respondent No. f- is that he has participated 1n one-day strike on O4.05.2015 and

05.05.2015, along with several other employees, r,r,hich is definitely not a serious misconduct. Hence the leamed Singie Judge was justified in interfering with the orders of termination/ removal. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge 5 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.73 of 2025

7. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscelianeous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-I. NAGA LAKSHMI UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. FARHAN AZAM KHAN (SC FOR TSWB) Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. V VENKATA MAYUR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI D. SUDARSHAN SC FOR WAOF BOARD [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KKS &{ "r*r..:,.1 HIGH COURT DATED:2010112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.73 of 2025 5 o o ( -t l rlE S i'4 i( v^ (( 2 4 FE:j ll',ii +", -^ ' ,/r/ ,a o tsr'. . ^' ^ DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS R,4 bl,r