High Court · 2025

2 ih; Dl;;;r or Ag,i"u'iirre NlJrleting' Government of Telangana' BRKR Buildings, HYderabad-63. a. Sri. rr,f ffi.'fn"n aged JOl,t 53 years, Dep-uty Director of Marketing' S o Sri tr/td. Moinuddin rn"n tL-t6ib7o 6i;"i;t 6f ,(gricultural Marketing Hyderabad 63 ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the orders in Govt. Memo. No.273lMktg-ll 2017 - 3 Dt: 02.05.2017and orders passed by the Governmentinlvlemo.No.5050/A&CA/iglA2l2O21dated03.0B.2024whereinthe Respondent No. t has not considered the Petitioner's case of retrospective promotion in view of his discilplinary proceedings was set aside' The Govt.Memo.No . 8O18Ntg-212016, Dt: 08 02 2017 wherein the Respondent No 1 has not treated the gap period of compulsory retirement as duty as illegal' arbitraryandinviolatronofArticlel4,l6and2,lofConstitutionoflndiaandalso contrary to F.R. 54 (1) (b) of the Fundamental Rules & Subsidiary Rules and also contrary to Rule 32,40 & of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules '1991 and setasidethesameanddirecttherespondentstoeffectpromotiononparwiththe junior i.e., 3rd Respondent and extend all consequently benefits such as seniority promotl('n etr', in the interests of justice and to p'ass suc l other order or orders as the Hor.'hl,: court may deem fit and proper in the c rcurrrstances of the (As per Court <rrder cated '1 8-03-2025 vide lA.No 1 of 2D24 in V/P No 40700 of 2017, PraYer is a'rertrled) r.A. NO: 1 0F 201.ru {.e rvlE,-_N oj_59530_9E2!lz} Petition unrle r Section 151 CPC praying that in the ci 'cun stances stated in the affidavit ilr:d r support of the petition, the High Court mar" be pleased to suspend l\rlemtr N() 273IMKT.ll 2A17-5 dl. 20-07-2017 ssu'rd by the 1st respondent ancl tO efl'ect promotion to the post of Deputy Directrr of Marketing forthwith on par r.t'itlr l'rd respondent in the interest of justice Counsel for ther Freli :ioner: SRI P.V.RAMANA Counsel for ther Fler; rondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR AGRICULTLIRE Counsel for ther Fles rondent No.3: - The Court made t:ho f cllowing: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITI ON No.4O7OO oF 2()L7 oRAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following relief: "to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Govt. Memo. No. 273/Mktg-L/2017-3 Dt: O2.O5.2OL7 wherein the Respondent No.1 has not considered the Petitioner's case of retrospective promotion in view of his disciplinary proceedings was set aside. The Govt. Memo. No.8018/Vig-2l2016, Dt: 08.O2.2017 wherein the Respondent No. t has not treated the gap period of compulsory retirement as duty period is illegal arbitrary and u nconstitutiona I and its amounts to violation of Article 14,16 & 2l of the Constitution of India and also contrary to F.R. 54(1) (b) of the Fundamental Rules & Subsidiary Rules and also contrary to Rule 32.40 & 41 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules 19910 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to effect promotion on par with the junior i.e., 3rd respondent and extend all consequently benefits such as seniority promotion etc., in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and Proper in the circumstances of the case, " z. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2' Perused the record. 2

3. The c,ase of the petitioner is that respDndent No.1 has issued r Memo No. 273 / Mtfl.I / ',>_077-3, Dt: 02.05.20-.1'stating that the Petitioner carrnot be considereJ for promotion as Deputy Dirclctor of Marketing (DDM) with retrospective effect from the date of h s juniors' promotion, as his punishrrrent was set aside or appeal, revision and review nclt on merit. The first re:;tondent has also not treated the gap period as duty p'erirld vide Memo No. B01B/Vig-2/2(t16, Dt:

08.02.2017, during which the Petitioner was kept under compulsory retirement in view of the setting aside of punishment ty the same authority.

4. It s :; tbmitted that earlier the petitiorrer was reinstated, 11 Lly setting aside the penalty of r:ornpulsory retiremert, e rrd was awarded a penalty of stoppage of two anntral grade increments with cumulative elTect by allowing lri:; Appeal petition in the first instance. Thereaftelr. r:spondent No.1 reduced the sarid penalty 3 to stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect by allowing the Petitioner's Revision Petition in the second instance. Finally, respondent No.1 completely set aside the entire penalty by allowing the Review Petition in the third instance. The entire disciplinary case, along with the punishment/ was completely set aside, and the Petitioner was exonerated from the charge. In such a case, the action of the first respondent in not considering his case for retrospective promotion is illegal, against natural justice, and unconstitutional, amounting to violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. It is further submitted that the appeal, revision, and review are statutory provisions under CCA Rules,

1991. The charged officer can avail all these remedies, and there is no separate provision called "merit" under the said Rules. The Government may at any time, either on its own motion or otherwise, review any order 4 1 passed lncer the CCA Rules, 1991, including an order passed i'r re,vision, if any new material or r:vicience has come i:o rotice. The appellate authority, re,visionary authority, ;rrd reviewing authority are higher in cadre than the ciisciplinary authority, and the' orders passed by them rrust be implemented without hesitation. In the instanl case, though the Reviewing A,uthority set aside ther :unishment completely, the 2nd rer;;pondent (disciplinarl' authority) requested the 1st respcrndent to consider trer Petitioner's case under G.O.Ms.No.331. However, :re 1't respondent rejected the pe[itioner,s case withc)ut examining the conditions stipr-rlated tn G.O.Ms N:..131. The contention that the purrishment was set err;i de not on merit is unjustif ed and unsupporl ecl by any law.

6. It is respectfully submitted that, in the ca:;;e of the Petitionr:r, tre Government set aside the penalty after examinirp l.he merits of the case. The contenticrn of the 5 first respondent treating the set-aside of penalty not on merit is without proper application of mind, as there is no such concept under the CCA Rules. Due to the respondents' inaction, the Petitioner suffered injustice by having to work under 18 of his juniors since December 2013 and he retired on 31.72-2077. This situation is against natural justice. The general rules will not apply when specific seniority rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are in force (D'R. Yadav and Another vs. R.K. Singh and Another, 2003 scc (L&s) ee3).

7. It is respectfully submitted that the first respondent also did not apply mind while treating the gap period of compulsory retirement. As per FR 54 (1)(b), when a punishment is set aside, the gap period shall be treated as duty period, and the pay and allowances must be paid accordingly. Since the Petitioner was exonerated, the leave sanctioned earlier 6 should tre 'ecast. Furthermore, it is submilted that contrary to the orders of the Hon'ble APAT in O.A. No. 9343/20l3 f iled by the Petitioner, the l'irst respondent rejected tl're Petitioner's case for retrospective promotion 1o DDM, citing non-availability cf vacancies, which is ill:gal, unconstitutional, and againsI service rules.

8. Learn=cl counsel for the petitioner subrrrits that there is no !'acancy to accommodate the petiti:ner and he is nc,t entitled for promotion with retr()spective effect as the grun s;lrment was set aside without ary nrerit and prayed tc, clisrmiss the writ petition.

9. HavinrT considered the submissions made by both the learnr:cl counsel, it is apparent on the record that ultimaterll, thre punishment imposed on th,: petitioner was set asiclt: by the reviewing authority, and therefore he is entitlerri for consequential benefits as prayed for. 1 1O. The impugned Memos No' 273IMKT'U2O17-3' Dt: 02.05.2017; No. 8018/Vig-2 /20L6, Dt: 08'02'2017; and No. 273/MKT/U2077/5, Dt: 20-07'2017, are hereby set aside. The Respondents are directed to consider the Petitioner's case for retrospective promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Marketing withallconsequentialbenefits,includingseniority' fixation of pay, and pensionary benefits, within a perlod of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed' No costs' Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. To I 2 3 4 q at Hvderabad. [OUTI Two'CD CoPies PSK. bs W SD/.S. AS MAL LIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER SE riat, cretariat to Government of of Telangana, BRKR or the State of Telangana, HIGH COUFIl' DATED:181(13't?-025 ) ORDER WP.No.40700 of 2017 --'- r. Iil:.5; ,4, Y- 3 21,t a (t, r1 ((, ALLOWING'TI.IE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CI):5;'15 q 1 tI b