Telangana High Court
N Gangalatha vs Sri Navin Mittal Ias on 2 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.4094 of 2024
and
CONTEMPT CASE No.2682 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since the lis in these cases in inter-connected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. W.P.No.4094 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to call for the records pertaining to impugned proceedings dated 02.01.2024 issued by the 1st respondent, proceedings dated 10.01.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and proceedings dated 11.01.2024 issued by the 4th respondent and set them aside as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, totally non-speaking and amounts to non-application of mind, predetermined mind and contrary to record, unconstitutional and in violation of Rule 20 of CCA Rules and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service w.e.f. 11.01.2024 and pass..."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent Department as a Shroff, which is a district cadre post, on 29.06.2012, and her probation was duly 2 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 declared w.e.f., 30.06.2014, vide proceedings dated 04.06.2015. While so, respondent No.4 placed her and two others, viz., Mrs. K. Anusha, Junior Assistant, and Mr. T. Naresh, Joint Sub Registrar-I, Karimnagar, under suspension vide proceedings dated 28.03.2016, on the allegation of certain discrepancies in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Registrar Office (OB), Karimnagar. Subsequently, respondent No.3 issued a charge memo dated 29.07.2016, framing five charges against the petitioner, and the same was served on the petitioner on 06.08.2016, but no material was furnished to her along with the said charge memo. As such, material was sought by the petitioner vide letter dated 18.08.2016, which was furnished to her on 22.10.2016. However, it was contended that even before all this, on the very same day of issuance of charge memo, i.e., 29.07.2016, the District Registrar (Market Value and Audit) was already appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, which goes to show that the respondents were predetermined to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. As such, the entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated on the ground of prejudicial and predetermined mind.
3
PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024
5. It was further submitted that the entire purpose of issuing a charge memo seeking explanation, is to enable the charged officer to submit his/her explanation so that a decision could be taken, whether to proceed with the enquiry or not. However, in the case of the petitioner, the very appointment of enquiry officer, while simultaneously issuing the charge memo, would mean that the right to defend her case and get it closed at the threshold itself is taken away. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are unsustainable in the eye of law.
6. It was further submitted that the enquiry officer conducted a common enquiry against the petitioner and the aforesaid two individuals, and the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation to the enquiry officer on 24.01.2017. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 31.01.2017, holding all charges against the petitioner as not proved, while holding all charges against Mrs. K. Anusha, Junior Assistant, as proved and only two out of the six charges against Mr. T. Naresh, Joint Sub Registrar-I, as proved. However, the said enquiry report was kept in cold storage for about two years, until it was finally furnished to the petitioner and the other two individuals vide proceedings dated 04.10.2018, and the petitioner 4 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 submitted her written statement to the enquiry report vide letter dated 02.11.2018. Thereafter, the matter has again been kept in cold storage for five years, after which, the Government issued the Memo dated 20.05.2022, instructing respondent No.2 to direct respondent No.3 to impose a punishment of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect against Mr. T. Naresh and a penalty of dismissal from service against Mrs. K. Anusha. In pursuance thereof, Mr. T. Naresh was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect, and Mrs. K. Anusha was dismissed from service vide proceedings dated 27.09.2022, which was challenged by her in W.P.No.40466 of 2022, wherein, this Court granted interim orders on 03.11.2022, suspending the operation of the dismissal order till the next date of hearing, which was eventually extended periodically, until it was extended till the conclusion of hearing vide order dated 30.06.2023.
7. It was further submitted that in the Government Memo dated 20.05.2022, respondent No.2 was further instructed to direct respondent No.3 to communicate a disagreement note over the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of the petitioner, by giving reasons for disagreement and to obtain a representation from the 5 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 petitioner before taking further steps in the matter. Thereafter, vide letter dated 06.08.2022, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to furnish the disagreement factors. In turn, respondent No.3, vide Memo dated 27.08.2022, directed respondent No.4 to furnish the same. Consequently, respondent No.4, vide letter dated 01.09.2022, furnished the disagreement factors to the petitioner and sought for her explanation. In response, the petitioner submitted her explanation on 07.09.2022, duly enclosing her original defense statement submitted to the disciplinary authority and enquiry officer, and requested to drop the disciplinary proceedings as she is innocent, and as the enquiry officer himself held the charges as not proved. It was further contended that the proposal for disagreement came not from respondent Nos.4, 3 or 2, but from the Government, which is totally illegal, as there is no independent exercise of power by the disciplinary authority, who appears to have abdicated his power, and the same is impermissible and contrary to law.
8. It was further contended that under Rule 21(2) of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, a disagreement note must have specific reasons for disagreement duly recording separate findings, that too, within the four corners of 6 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 evidence. However, in the case of the petitioner, the aforesaid procedure is totally violated. Further, no reasons have been recorded as to why the authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and also there is no discussion about the evidence as to how the enquiry officer was wrong. Therefore, on this ground alone, the whole proceedings deserve to the quashed. Further, the disagreement note is, in itself, unsustainable, inasmuch as it says as if the petitioner connived/colluded with Mrs. Anusha, even though such is not the charge framed against the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner submitted her explanation to the alleged disagreement note on 07.09.2022, which was forwarded to the Government by respondent No.2, and in turn, the Government, vide Memo dated 02.01.2024, directed respondent No.2 to direct respondent No.3 to impose a penalty of dismissal against the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.3, forwarded the Memo dated 02.01.2024 to respondent No.4 vide his endorsement dated 10.01.2024, and eventually, respondent No.4 dismissed the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 11.01.2024. It was contended that the disciplinary authority had no discretion in the case of the petitioner as all the steps/decisions were taken by the Government and respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 herein simply followed the 7 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 instructions of the Government. As such, there is total abdication of power by the disciplinary authority and usurpation by the Government. It was further contended that the Memo dated 02.01.2024 of respondent No.1, the endorsement of respondent No.3 dated 10.01.2024 and the impugned dismissal order dated 11.01.2024 are all non-speaking orders, amounting to non- application of mind. No reasons as to disagreement and dismissal of the petitioner are assigned. Therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated.
9. It was further submitted that the petitioner was only assisting the Junior Assistant, Mr. K. Anusha, and she has no role/duty in the whole episode, and has nothing to do with the allegations. As such, the enquiry officer had also held the charges against her as not proved. Further, the main responsible person, Mr. T. Naresh, was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect, whereas, the petitioner has been inflicted with a punishment of dismissal, which is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. It was also submitted that Mrs. K. Anusha actually never participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer held the charges against her as proved, but when she challenged her dismissal 8 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 order, this Court was pleased to suspend the same. As such, the petitioner, who stands on a better footing than Mrs. K. Anusha, is entitled for setting aside of her dismissal from service. It was further contended that the petitioner had also lost her right to appeal, inasmuch as the decision of dismissing the petitioner from service was taken at the highest level, i.e., by the Government. The authorities have totally failed to conduct the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the CCA Rules and the said proceedings are vitiated at every stage, and thus, the imposition of a major penalty of dismissal from service is highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, predetermined, contrary to record and in violation of the CCA Rules, and goes to show the non-application of mind by the respondents. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to pass necessary orders.
10. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services submitted that the Joint Sub Registrar of the Registrar Office (OB), Karimnagar, Sri T. Naresh, through his letter dated 15.11.2015, reported to respondent No.4 that during the course of verification of stocks in the stamp counter attached to Registrar Office (OB), some variation were noticed, hence, requested to conduct a special audit for eliciting the 9 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 facts. In turn, respondent No.4, vide proceedings dated 18.11.2015, has constituted a Committee, consisting of two Sub Registrars, one Senior Assistant and one Junior Assistant, for verification of stamps, remittances, reconciliation statements for the period from 01.01.2013 and submit the report. After verification of stamp counter records from 01.01.2013 to 22.01.2016, the Committee submitted its report on 28.03.2016, concluding that an amount of Rs.70,76,926/- was misappropriated and also reported that Smt. K. Anusha, Junior Assistant and the petitioner herein were working in stamps counter during that period and they are responsible for the said misappropriation. The Committee reported that the said Junior Assistant and the petitioner herein who dealt with the sales made on different dates for various amounts, did not remit the amounts into the account of the Joint Sub Registrar-I for onward transfer to the Government Treasury. The Committee further reported that the Junior Assistant and the petitioner herein have written fictitious challan particulars for some entries and no challan details were written for the remaining entries out of them, and they did not enter the details of some of the sales of the said misappropriated amount completely in the sales register. The Committee also stated that the total misappropriated amount, in prima facie, arrived at 10 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 Rs.18,52,970/- (sale through Franking machine) and Rs.52,23,956/- in a shortage of Judicial and non-judicial labels), totaling Rs.70,76,926/-, and that the Junior Assistant and the petitioner herein have re-written the sale and stock particulars for certain period in the same registers. The Committee observed that the Junior Assistant and the petitioner herein sold away the total stamps which were found to be short in the sale categories and received the money from the concerned purchaser and have simply remitted the said sale amount partially into the account of the Joint Sub Registrar-I, and misappropriated the remaining amount. Therefore, respondent No.4 herein, who is the appointing authority for Junior Assistant and below ranked employees, as per Rule 4 of the Telangana Ministerial Service Rules, 1998, and S.O.No.81(1) of the Registration Manual of the Registration Act, 1908, also being the disciplinary authority, basing on the report of the Committee dated 18.11.2015, placed the petitioner and the Junior Assistant under suspension on 28.03.2016. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged before the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Karimnagar vide his letter dated 28.03.2016, which came to be registered as FIR No.129 of 2016. After completion of the investigation, the Station House Officer filed a charge sheet 11 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 before the Junior Civil Judge Court at Karimnagar, which was assigned C.C.No.1200 of 2017.
11. It was further submitted that in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 24(1)(a) of the CCA Rules, respondent No.3 issued a charge memo vide proceedings No.S/778/1/2016 dated 29.07.2016, framing five charges each against the petitioner and the Junior Assistant, while framing six charges against the Joint Sub Registrar-I. While issuing the charge memo, at paragraph 3 therein, it was informed that that the petitioner has to submit her written statement of defense within fifteen days of receipt of the charge memo. The petitioner has received the charge memo on 06.08.2016, but instead of submitting her explanation, requested for material on 17.08.2016, and the disciplinary authority replied to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 30.08.2016, which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 21.09.2016. As such, the respondents also complied with the supply of material. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has appointed a regular enquiry officer on 22.10.2016 but not on 29.07.2016, as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner had also participated in the regular enquiry proceedings, and after conducting a regular enquiry within the purview of the Telangana Civil Services 12 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 31.01.2017, holding the charges leveled against the petitioner as not proved, the charges against Smt. K. Anusha, Junior Assistant, as proved and the two out of the six charges against Sri T. Naresh, Joint Sub Registrar-I as proved.
12. It was further submitted that subsequent to the submissions of enquiry report dated 31.01.2017, certain information was called for from the enquiry officer as some flaws and omissions were noticed in the enquiry report. In turn, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 06.09.2018, holding that both the petitioner and the Junior Assistant are equally responsible for the lapses occurred. Later, the disciplinary authority and respondent No.3 called the petitioner to submit her final statement of defense, which was submitted by the petitioner on 02.11.2018, through respondent No.4 vide endorsement dated 03.11.2018. Thereafter, respondent No.3, being the disciplinary authority, sent the punishment proposals to the Government, i.e., respondent No.1, through respondent No.2, to comply with the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.25, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 03.02.2004, for embezzlement and misappropriation of Government 13 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 money in her letter dated 26.02.2019. Thereafter, respondent No.1, after careful consideration, issued orders in Memo dated 20.05.2022, through respondent No.2, instructing to obtain tentative reasons for the disagreement with the findings of the enquiry authority, on each article of charge against the petitioner. Then, the disciplinary authority communicated the disagreement factors to the petitioner in her Memo dated 27.08.2022, through the proceedings of respondent No.4 dated 01.09.2022, and obtained the petitioner's explanation dated 07.09.2022.
13. It was further submitted that no independent exercise should be there as the present case is a case misappropriation/embezzlement of Government money. As the petitioner's explanation to the disagreement note was not satisfactory, respondent No.3 sent the punishment proposals to respondent No.1. Subsequently, respondent No.1, after careful consideration of the explanation, available material, Rules and Standing Orders framed under the Registration Act, 1908, and the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 03.02.2004, instructed respondent No.2 to direct respondent No.3 to consider and impose the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. In turn, respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 14 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 10.01.2024, to respondent No.4, who is the competent authority, and requested to take further action against the petitioner. Thus, respondent No.4, as the competent authority, has issued rightly the impugned dismissal order dated 11.01.2024.
14. It was further submitted that as per S.O.No.791(2) of the Registration Manual, the Shroff shall present the indent for stamps and taking delivery of stamps, remit the sale proceeds into the Sub- Treasury or bank. However, while submitting the records, the petitioner has manipulated the records, which was reported in the preliminary enquiry report. Further, as per S.O.No.790(iii)(1) of the Registration Manual, the Sub Registrar, as Ex-Officio Stamp Vendor, the Junior Assistant and Shroff are collectively responsible for any shortage of stock or cash remittances unless otherwise proved. Therefore, as per the preliminary enquiry report and regular enquiry report, it was proved that the Stamp Counter Junior Assistant and the petitioner herein were responsible for losses. However, though there is no responsibility on the part of the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Sri T. Naresh, he has accepted the punishment. The petitioner along with Smt. K. Anusha, have written fictitious challan numbers in the manual records and caused loss of revenue and also failed to deposit 15 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 the amount into the Government account. As such, there is no illegality in issuing the impugned dismissal order against the petitioner. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
15. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records.
16. Admittedly, while the petitioner was working as a Shroff in the office of respondent No.4, a charge memo dated 29.07.2016 was issued to her, in addition to the other charged officers, i.e., Joint Sub Registrar-I and the Junior Assistant, wherein, five chargers were framed against the petitioner. The sum and substance of the charges is that the petitioner and other two officers sold away the stamps, but did not fully submit the sale proceeds into the account of the Joint Sub Registrar-I/Ex-Officio Stamp Vendor, instead, misappropriated the balance amount. While so, the petitioner submitted her explanation to the charge memo dated 29.07.2016, and subsequently, respondent No.4 appointed a presenting officer and an enquiry officer. Here it is to be noted that the enquiry officer was appointed on the very same day the charge memo was issued.
16
PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024
17. The very purpose of issuing a charge memo is to permit the charged employee to put forward their stand before deciding whether an enquiry is required to be conducted or not. However, in the case on hand, the decision to appoint an enquiry officer on the same day of issuing the charge memo shows that the authorities had already made up their minds to proceed against the petitioner, defeating the whole purpose of the entire process.
18. The record discloses that after conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated 31.01.2017 to respondent No.4, holding the charges against the petitioner as not proved. As none of the charges against the petitioner were proved in the enquiry, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in proceeding further and imposing any penalty, much less the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. It is evident from the record that the disciplinary authority issued a disagreement note against the enquiry report dated 31.01.2017, but the same is vague and lacked proper reasoning for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer. As such, it can be inferred that the disagreement note is also in violation of Rule 21(2) of the Telangana CCA Rules. Moreover, it appears that the said disagreement note was issued only at the 17 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 directions of the Government. The Government had also issued instructions to impose the penalty of dismissal against the petitioner, which was blindly followed by the authorities. The law, in this regard, is well-settled that the disciplinary authority has to exercise its own discretion and judgment, and it is not expected to act merely on the instructions from the higher authorities.
19. It is also relevant to note that the Smt. K. Anusha, Junior Assistant, against whom all the charges were held proved, was also inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. However, as can be seen from the record, she had preferred a writ petition vide W.P.No.40466 of 2022, challenging her dismissal order and the said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2024. While setting aside her punishment order, this Court directed the respondents to reinstate her into service and to conduct an enquiry, afresh, duly giving an opportunity of hearing and by supplying all the documents, on which they place reliance upon, to her. It is also pertinent to note that the very same enquiry officer held two out of the six charges against Sri T. Naresh, Joint Sub Registrar-I, as proved, based on which, the disciplinary authority seems to have imposed a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect 18 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 against him. However, in the case of the petitioner, despite none of the five charges were proved, the respondents have imposed a major punishment of dismissal from service, while imposing a lesser punishment on Sri T. Naresh.
20. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1, categorically held that that parity among co-delinquents needs to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. The punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. It was also held that the disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious offences and harsher punishment for lighter ones or discriminatory punishment for similarly situated persons. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is extracted hereunder:
"12. We are of the view that the principle laid down in the abovementioned judgments would also apply to the facts of the present case. We have already indicated that the action of the disciplinary authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment on the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment on the appellant cannot be permitted in 1 (2013) 3 SCC 73 19 PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024 law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. The appellant is, therefore, to be reinstated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was reinstated and be given all consequential benefits as were given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs."
21. Further, as none of the charges against the petitioner were proved, this Court finds no justifiable basis for the decision of the disciplinary authority to impose such an extreme penalty of dismissal from service.
22. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned punishment order dated 11.01.2024
23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned dismissal order vide proceedings No.E1/SV/2712/2015 dated 11.01.2024 issued by respondent No.4 and the matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority, with a direction to impose a lesser punishment than that was imposed on Sri T. Naresh, Joint Sub Registrar-I, and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20
PK, J W.P.No.4094 of 2024 C.C.No.2682 of 2024
24. As regards the Contempt Case filed by the petitioner vide C.C.No.2682 of 2024, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the interim order of this Court dated 29.02.2024 could not be complied with, owing to legal hurdles, but not willful or wanton.
25. In view of the above made submission, this Court believes that there is no willful disobedience of the interim order of this Court dated 29.02.2024.
26. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition and contempt case, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 02.07.2025.
GSP