B.Jaya Sree vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 4406 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                WRIT PETITION NO.8414 OF 2022


                              ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ

of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in issuing

Proceedings No.VSII(2)/1301/2012, dt.07.12.2021 as illegal and

arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to grant all

consequential benefits including arrears of increments, difference in

salary and all other service benefits under Rule 20 of CS (CCA) Rules to

the petitioner in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or

orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the

petitioner was recruited as Junior Assistant in the year 1996 and

thereafter, she was promoted as Senior Assistant in 2004 and later as

Tahsildar in the year 2011. It is submitted that on 06.06.2012, a charge

memo was issued by invoking Rule 20 of the CS (CCA) Rules and in

the Annexures-II and III to the charge memo, the contents were W.P.No.8414 of 2022

mentioned as nil. It is submitted that the respondents have thus issued

the charge memo without any basis. The petitioner submits that she has

submitted her explanation on 06.12.2012, and on 11.08.2012, the

respondents appointed an enquiry officer and after more than 9 years,

suddenly vide proceedings dt.28.04.2021, an oral enquiry was conducted

by the Special Deputy Collector, Godavarikhani and the enquiry report

was furnished on 28.04.2021. It is submitted that no procedure was

followed while conducting the departmental enquiry even though a

charge memo was issued under Rule 20 of CS (CCA) Rules and no

documents were filed nor marked. The petitioner submits that the

enquiry officer, though observed that there is no documentary evidence

about collusion of the petitioner with quarry lease holders in changing

the sub-division to create the way to the leaseholders, held the charges

partly proved and on the basis of the same, the respondents have

imposed a major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade

increments with cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the present

Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi,

submits that the order under challenge is totally without any application W.P.No.8414 of 2022

of mind and is a non-speaking order. He submits that the charge memo

has to be issued by the appointing/disciplinary authority, whereas in the

case of the petitioner, it has been initiated by the District Collector and

therefore, the initiation of the proceedings itself is not proper and not in

accordance with CS (CCA) Rules. He further submits that there is an

inordinate delay of 9 years in conducting the enquiry and that too, an

oral enquiry and therefore, the respondents have not followed the rules

particularly Rule 20 of CS (CCA) Rules. Therefore, he seeks setting

aside of the charge memo and all the consequential proceedings

thereafter.

4. Learned Special Government Pleader, Sri M.V. Rama Rao,

appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, relies upon

Rule 19 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'the Rules'), which prescribes the

authority to institute proceedings and as per Sub-Rule (1)(b) thereof, the

Government or any other authority empowered by it by general or

special order may direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary

proceedings against any Government servant on whom that disciplinary

authority is competent to impose, under these rules, any of the penalties W.P.No.8414 of 2022

specified in Rule 9 or Rule 10. He refers to Point No.1 of the Executive

Instruction thereunder issued in Memo No.24313/Ser.C/2000, G.A. (Ser.

C) Department, dt.26.07.2001, wherein clarifications have been given

that the District Collectors are empowered to institute disciplinary

proceedings against district officials per se without going into the merits

of the decision. He submitted that as per the procedure laid down under

Rule 22 of the Telangana CS (CCA) Rules 1991, in the case of minor

penalty proceedings by issuing a charge memo or under Rule 20 in the

case of major penalty proceedings by issuing a charge sheet, it is

clarified that the rules provide for initiation of disciplinary action by

issuing a show-cause notice, obtaining explanation and sending the

material to the Head of the Department or Government for taking further

action. He further submits that Rule 20 of the Rules prescribes for

procedure for imposing major penalties and Sub-Rule (3) thereunder

provides that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a

Government Servant under this Rule and Rule 21, the Disciplinary

Authority or the Controlling Authority who is not designated as

Disciplinary Authority and who is subordinate to the Appointing

Authority can draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of the

imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct W.P.No.8414 of 2022

articles of charge. Therefore, according to the learned Special

Government Pleader, the District Collector being the Controlling

Authority of all the employees in the District is the Authority for issuing

the Charge Memo to the petitioner herein.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

it is noticed that in this case, the charge memo was issued by the District

Collector who is the Controlling Authority but not the Disciplinary

Authority. However, the final orders of punishment have been passed by

the Appointing Authority/Disciplinary Authority. As per Rule 20 Sub-

Rule (2) of the Rules, the Controlling Authority can draw up the charges

and in view thereof, this Court does not find any reason to hold that the

initiation of the disciplinary proceedings is without jurisdiction.

6. However, as far as the merits of the order passed by the 1st

respondent are concerned, it is noticed that it is a non-speaking order.

Though the 1st respondent has reproduced the articles of charge, the

explanation of the petitioner and the report of the enquiry officer and the

explanation submitted by the Charged Officer in the enquiry report in

the penultimate paragraph, has passed the order of punishment without

giving any reasons for doing so.

W.P.No.8414 of 2022

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary

Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish

Sharan Varshney1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that

unless reasons are disclosed, a person will not be able to know whether

the authority has applied its mind or not and also giving of reasons

minimises the chances of arbitrariness and therefore, it is an essential

requirement of rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be

disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of

affirmation. The 1st respondent has acted in quasi-judicial capacity while

passing the impugned order and therefore, he is required to give his

reasons for imposing the major punishment of stoppage of two annual

grade increments with cumulative effect.

8. In view thereof, this Court deems it fit and proper to set aside the

impugned order dt.07.12.2021 and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider

the submissions of the petitioner and also the material on record and

pass a speaking order thereon within a period of six weeks from the date

AIR 2009 SC 3276 W.P.No.8414 of 2022

of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the

petitioner.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to

costs.

10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall

stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date:06.09.2022 Svv