Telangana High Court
M.Nageshwar Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 19 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.10228 OF 2024
ORDER:
With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.
2. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ Order or Orders, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned Proc.Rc.No. 39/Ser/Rc.1/2019 dated 07.05.2019, issued by the 2nd respondent and its consequential Proc.Rc.No.B1/14431/2015 dated 24.06.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent whereunder treating the suspension period from 16.09.2015 to 18.01.2017 as eligible leave and imposing punishment of 'Censure' without considering Sessions Case Judgment dated 30.10.2017 in S.C.No.20 of 2016 and violation of F.R.54(1)(b) and violation of Articles 14 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to regulate the period from 16.09.2015 to 18.01.2017 as spent on duty under F.R.54(1)(b) with all consequential benefits such as, revision of pay scale, arrears, etc., and pass such other order or orders..."
3. Heard Sri M.Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2 PK,J W.P.No.10228 of 2024
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as School Assistant in Physical Science, at Zilla Parishad High School, Utkuru, he was placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent vide Proc.Rc.No. B1/14431/2016 dated 16.09.2016, on the allegation that he has misbehaved with girl students and F.I.R. was also registered, which was later converted as S.C.No.20 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, for the offences under Sections 354-A, 506 I.P.C., Section 7 read with 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Subsequently, he was reinstated into service vide orders, dated 18.01.2017, issued by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, he joined to duty on revocation of suspension on 18.01.2017 itself. Pending adjudication of the said Sessions Case, an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report on 04.11.2016 stating that the petitioner committed mistake and deserves punishment. Thereafter, after full-fledged trial, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges laid against him in S.C.No.20 of 2016 vide judgment dated 30.10.2017.
3 PK,J W.P.No.10228 of 2024
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the allegations made against the petitioner were unproved on merits, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent requesting to regulate the suspension period i.e. from 16.09.2015 to 18.01.2017 and on the request of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has forwarded the said proposals to the 2nd respondent vide Letter dated 15.03.2018. On that, 2nd respondent instructed the 3rd respondent vide Proc.Rc.No.39/Ser/Rc.1/2019, dated 07.05.2019, to treat the suspension period from 16.09.2015 to 18.01.2017 as sanctioned eligible leave. Therefore, 3rd respondent vide Proc. Rc.No.B1/14431/2015, dated 24.06.2019 while treating the suspension period as eligible leave, as per the instructions of 2nd respondent, imposed punishment of 'Censure', which is illegal when the Sessions Case was ended in acquittal in favour of the petitioner. Hence, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the letter sent by 3rd respondent in Lr.No.B1/14431/2015, dated 15.03.2018 for regularization of the suspension period from 16.09.2015 to 18.01.2017.
4 PK,J W.P.No.10228 of 2024
6. Learned Government Pleader for Services appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the 2nd respondent will pass appropriate orders on the proposal sent by the 3rd respondent vide Letter dated 15.03.2018 in accordance with law.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the proposal sent by 3rd respondent vide Lr.No.B1/14431/2015, dated 15.03.2018, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 19.04.2024 SVL