The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe 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 Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in initiating and continuing disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for an alf eged incident pertaining to the year 2O11 by framing charges vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.42 l of 2013 daled 02.02.2018 as being arbitrary, illegal, defective, discriminatory, unjust, contrary to the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01 .11 .2OO8, in violation of Article '14 of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same accordingly. lA NO: 1 oF 2018 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 suspend the operation of impugned charge Memo issued by the 3rd respondent in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.42i of 20.1 3 dated 02.02.2018. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : ASST. Gp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.36455 of 20ta ORDER: Heard Mr.V.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Hoine for respondent Nos. 1 to 4

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) in May,2OOZ and later promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police on 28.O5.2O 1 1 . While working as Additional S.P.(Operations) and holding charge at Narsampet Division, the petitioner, in connivance with the syndicate leader, is alleged to have abused his official position by omission of his lawful duties, allowed various irregularities in violation of Excise Act/Rules. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, T. S. Hyderabad( Tribunal for brevity) has framed charges against the petitioner for vioiation of Excise Act/Ruies, making him guilty of misconduct under Rule 3 (1) & (2) of T.S. Civil Services(Conduct) Rules 1964 r/w Rule 2 (b) of the T.S. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1989 framed under T.S. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 2 NSK,J W.P. No.15455 of 2018 1960 as amended in 1993 in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.421 of 20 13 (T.E.C. for brevity).

3. The averment made by the petitioner is that the Tribunal has framed charges in T.E.C.No.421 of 2013, against him in February 20 18 i.e., after lapse of almost hve years from the date of Government Memo and seven years from the date of alleged incident, the Tribunal has framed charges against him in T.tr.C.No. 197 of 2O13 with identical allegations and the r,r,orking period of the petitioner at Srikakulam has been mentioned as 72.11.2O7O to 21.11.2011, which is contrarry to the dates mentioned in T.E.C.

4. He further averred that similar charges are framed against hundreds of excise officials including retired ofhcers. Several retired officers have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by instituting several writ petitions and this Court rvas pleased to suspend the operation of the charge memos issued by Tribunal and requested this Court to set aside the charges framed against him in T.E.C.

5. Learned counsei for the petitioner further relied upon the common judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 166O of 2018 and 593 of 2076, wherein it is 3 NAK,' W.P. No.35455 of 2O1E stated that the delay of 5 to 18 years r.r,as held to be inordinate dela.y and the operative portion of the said order reads as under ''ln Ihe considered opinion of this Court, on the issue ol delay and laches. as has been considered bi. tlre Fu_ll Bench, as there was certainly an inord'inate delay of I7. years in approaching rhis Court,"the order passed by the learncd Singli Judge is hereby set aside."

6. Respondent No.4 has liled counter affidavit stating that the contention of the petitioner that after a lapse of 6 t/z fears charge Memo was issued is not .6orrect ald misconcerved and the averment with regard to . the sequence leading to registration of case is concerned, it is registered on credible information received during a surprise check at Karimnagar Town on 13. 12.2011 bv rntercepting a Tata Vista vehicle belonging to officials of the Excise Department and under the cover of panchanama Rs.3,62,64O/- was seized from them as it was suspected to be bribe for favouring the owners of the wine shops. It is also averred that the respondents framed charges against the petrtloner without veri$ing the basic fact whether the petitioner was holding the position as described in the charge memo. The petitioner was working as OSD (in the cadre of Additional Sp) and the service particulars of the petitioner were not received by the time Final Report was sent to the Government against the 4 N8l(,., w.P. No.35455 oi 2018 .- --,] Petitioner and others. Basing on the report the then Government uide memo dated 04.03.20 13 entrusted the case against the petitioner and other to the 1'ribunal and the connected records along with Part B Note u'ere filed in Tribunal on 03.1O.2O13. The post of Addl. SP is ecluivalent to the post of the OSD and as per the evidence available, the petitioner was placed on his defence before the Tribunal and the main crux of the ACB report is acceptance of bribe/ mammol or not when he was u'orking as OSD, Narsampet but not the nomenclature of his designation and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner as lot of material evidence is on record against him in respect of allegations and the period i.e., O2.O9.2O 1 I to 02.09.2012 during the which the petitioner worked as OSD, Narsampet was the same.

7. He furtht:r averred that the petitioner's contention that his working period at Srikakulam and Narsampet is overlapping is not correct and also averred that there is evidence to prove the allegations made against him.

8. It is stated that the contention of the petitioner that the controiling of hquor business does not come under his purview is not correct because, besides the sale of liquor as per the MRP rates, the aspects relating to selling of liquor beyoncl stipulated V 5 NgK,J W,P, No.36455 of Z0la time limit, operation of belt shops, consumption of liquor in wine shops and parking violations comes under the purview of law and

9. [n vie',r, of the rival submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that as this Court, on the issue ol.delay and laches, as has been considered by the Full Bench, as there was cei-tainly an inordinate delay of 6 t/z \ears for lramrng charges against the petitioner, the charge memo daLed O2.O2.20 18 is Iialrlr to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, this, Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the Charge Memo dated O2.O2.2O18 in TEC No.42 1 of 20 13 passed by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending rn this rvrit petition, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SDi- K. AMMAJI PUTY REGISTRAR / D SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary to Government, Home D of Telangana, HYderabad- 22. epartment, Secretariat, State

2. The Director General of Police' Telangana State, Hyderabad' 3. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings' Telangana' rep- by its Secretary' Nampally, HYderabad.

4. The lnspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau Warang-al RangeWarangal ' oiiiritiTli"rgh Standing Counsel'cum Spl P P forACB cases Telangana' Hyderabad.

5. One CC to SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA, Advocate [OPUC] 6,TwoCCstoGPFoRHoME,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana.[oUT] 7. Two CD Copies. u'1 {opL HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ) ,iL s lA r€ 2g Jllt 2$6 ( q o t) ( P i;) ^./ ORDER WP.No.36455 of 2018 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS n &q \rl