Heard Sri v. Ravichandran

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings vide impugned G.O. Rt. No. 211 Agriculture and Cooperation (V1G) Department dated iB-04-2012 issued by the 1 Respondent in respect of an alleged incident pertaining to the year 2O1S j6 and Government l\,4emo No.577lA and C/Vig./A1/2016 dated 20-02-2024 against the Petitroner though the Commissioner of lnquiries has categorically held that the charges are not proved, as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by inordinate and un- explained delay, contrary to the time limit of three and six months stipulated for completion of enquiries vide G.O. Ms. No. 679 dated 01-11-2008 and G_O. N,4s. No. 175 dated 21-08-2O25 in simple and complicated cases respectively and Rule 20 of TCS(CC and A) Rules 1991, in violation of provisions of Rule 21 of the said Rules and Article 14 of the Constitution of India ancl r€,t aside the same accordingly in the interest of lustice. l.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under Sectlon '1 51 CPC praying that in the r r the aifidavit filed r. suoport of the petition, the High Cou' suspend the operatron of the impugned charge memo isl;tt' 211 Agriculture and Cooperation (VlG) Department dated 1 3 Government I\,4err o No. 57 7/AandClYig.l A1 l 20 1 6 dated 20'( r: :umstances stated in may be pleased to cl vide G.O. Rt. No. 04-2017 and related -2024 issued by the 1st Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES-II The Court made the following ORDER PK,J Wp 34639 2025 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.34639 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the followrng relief "...to rssue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Maldamus by declaring the action of the Respondents in rnrtiating arld continuing the disciplinary proceedings vide impugned G.O. Rt. No-21 I Agrieulture and Cooperation [V1c) Department dated 18-O4-2017 issued by the 1st Respondent in respect of aI alleged incident pertaining to the year 2015 16 and Government Memo No.577/A ajld Clvig./A1/2016 dated 20 02 2024 against the Petitioner though the Commissioner of Inquiries has categorically held that the charges are not proved, as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by inordinate and un-explained delay, contrar], to the time limit of three and sL< months stipulated for completron of enquiries vide G.O. Ms. No.679 dated O1 11 20O8 arrd G.O. Ms. No. 175 dated 21 08 2025 in simple aIrd compl.icated cases respectively and Rule 20 of TCS(CC arrd A) Rules 1991, in violation of provisions of Rule 21 of the said Rules and Article 14 of the Constitution of Indra arrd set aside the same accordingly in the interest ofjustice and to pass...'

2. Heard Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services II, on beha.lf of the respondenl s.

3. l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was issued with a Charge Memo uide G.O.Rt.No.211 dated 18.O4.2017, for the alleged incidenls pertaining to the year 2015-16. In response, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 03.06.2017, denying the charges leveled against him. However, without considering the said explanation, arr enquiry was conducted, holding the charges leveled against the petitioner as not prcved uide enquiry report dated

15.07.2023. Despite the same, respondent No.2 issued a show-cause I PK,J wp-34639-2025 notice dated 08.O1 .2024 , along with the copy of the r:: r p:iry report, and called ibr explanation from the petitioner, and 1a t : ', furnished the reasons for disagreement with lhe hndrngs of the ,l I 1riry officer. [n response to the said show cause notice, the petititl I r submitted his explanation on 08.05.2024. Horvever, no orders are I rssed thereon so far. It is submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No .679 date I O1.1L2OO8 and G.O.Ms.No.175 dated 21.Oa.2O25, the disciplinary :t Lt hority is duty bound to pass final orders in disciplinary cases withrr lwo weeks after recerpt of the employee's explanation. However, nc ;uch action has been taken by the respondents. Therefore, learnr t counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to issue necessary drrectrr t s to respondent No.2 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings with i r a timeframe as may be stipulated by this Court.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services I app :aring on behalf of the respondents, on filing of a counter afhdant, s - Smits that since the gravity of allegations leveled against the petitjcr er is serious in nature, respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice 1 ted O8.O4.2024, calling for an explanation from the petitioner, to wh c h, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 08.O5.2024. As r t <;h, it is fairly submitted that since the said explanation of the pet i' ioner is pending consideration, respondent No.2 will consider thr: ;rrme and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. wp-34639 PK,J -2O2s

5. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and pemsed the material on record.

6. As can be seen from the record, the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.21 1, Agriculture and Cooperation (Vig) Department, dated

78.O4.2017 was issued against the petitioner for the incident pertaining to the year'2075 2016 and aJter conducting the enquiry the Enquiry Officer has submitted the Enquiry Report on 75.O7.2023 holding that the charges against the petrtioner were not p.ou.a. However, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent No. t has issued the disagreement Notrce vide Memo No.277 /A&C/Vtg. /AI /2076, dated 20.O2.2024, and in pursuance thereof respondent No.2 has issued the show cause notice dated 08.04.2024 calhr,g for explanation, for which, the petitioner has already submitted his explanation on 08.O5.2024. Bwt, so far, no {inal decision has been taken by respondent No.1 in the matter even aJter a lapse of more than 1 tZ years.

7. In the above circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to pass appropriate orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 08.05.2O24 keeping in view the orders issued in G.O.Ms-No.679 dated O 1. 1 1.2OO8 and G.O.Ms.No. 175 dated 2)..Oa.2O25, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner, failing which, the PK,J wp-34639 2025 disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petition, r, shall deemed to have been dropped.

8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is c1i; r,rsed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shail stl ri closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/. C. DEEPIKA AS; S;TANT REGISTRAR Note : That the date of order at the preamble portion and the docket sheet of the order dated 12-12-2025 in WP.No.34639 ot 2O25 are corrected and substituted Suomotu" This amended order shall substitute the earlier order, which has already been dispatched on 19-12-2025. Sd/-C.DEEPIKA AS; SiTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i ..-- SECTION OFFICER To SA GJ

1. The APC and Principal Secretary to Government, Agr r t t:re and Co- operation Department, T.S., State of Telangana at Hydr ebad.

2. The Director of Agriculture, Telangana State, Hyderafrz r 3. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-Il, High Court for the ! .ate o[ Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN, Advocate [OPUC 5. I wo UD Uopres 6- HIGH COURT DATED:1211212025 c.c. TotrA\' I thE (I il1' l- "yt"'lq5i,,; )tl7fi * AMENDED ORDER WP.No.34639 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 1L