Telangana High Court
Sri Panugothu Raju vs The State Of Telangana on 20 January, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P. No.22223 OF 2020
% 20-01-2023
# Panugothu Raju
....petitioner
Vs.
$ The State of Telangana, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Irrigation & CAD
Department, Hyderabad and another
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : Siva Raju Srinivas
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Services-II
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2015)15 SCC 151
2. (1999) 2 SCC 21
2 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WP. No.22223 OF 2020
Between:
Panugothu Raju
....petitioner
Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Irrigation & CAD
Department, Hyderabad and another
.... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 20.01.2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 22223 OF 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
"...to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner vide
orders in proceedings no.RC/ENC/H2/18051123/2018
dt.05.09.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, and
violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India,
apart from Telangana State and Service Subordinate Rules,
1996 and consequently, set aside the proceedings No.
RC/ENC/H2/18051123/2018 dt.05.09.2020 issued by the 2nd
respondent and consequently direct the respondents to
reinstate the petitioner into service as Assistant Engineer, I.B.
Section, Narayanpur, I.B Sub - Division, Choutuppal, Yadadri
Bhuvanagiri District and pass..."
2. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was
initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation & CAD
Department vide proceedings dt.26.05.2016 and reported to
duty on 06.06.2016 in IB Sub-Division Nalgonda of IB Division
Nalgonda of Irrigation Circle, Nalgonda. While the petitioner was
working in I.B. Section, Narayanpur, as Assistant Engineer, on
06.04.2018, he was meeting one of his relatives who offered
financial help by way of a loan to meet expenses of his sister's
4 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
engagement, but he was arrested by the Officers of Anti
Corruption Bureau at around 5.30 p.m. and he was informed
that based on F.I.R vide No. 02/RCT-NLG/2018 dated
06.04.2018 ACB Police Station, Nalgonda Range, the ACB laid a
trap on the complaint of his relative Udavath Rajesh, who is said
to have stated that the petitioner demanded a bribe amount for
clearing the pending payment to his father,.
2.1 It is further contended by the petitioner that the
allegation against him is that, he demanded and accepted a
bribe of Rs.1.25 lakhs, is false. It is a matter of record that as
on the date of the trap, from out of the total amounts of
Rs.71.33 lakhs, being the amounts due to the father of the
complainant, more than Rs.69.50 lakhs was already released
and there was nothing to be done any more. Pursuant to the
arrest of the petitioner, he was placed under deemed suspension
w.e.f.07.04.2018 vide G.O.Rt.No.640 dt.30.04.2018 and the
suspension was extended from time to time and vide
G.O.Rt.No.271 dt.06.07.2019 the suspension was extended till
further orders. Though the petitioner made several
representation to the respondents, but in vain.
5 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
2.2 It is further contended by the petitioner that he was
served with show cause notice by the 2nd respondent vide SCN
No. RC/ENC/H2/18051123/2018 dt.08.04.2020 wherein he
was informed that the 1st respondent had directed to terminate
his services vide Memo No.3573/Vig.I/A1/2018-2,
dt.19.03.2020 and explanation from the petitioner was called for
as to why he should not be discharged from service in terms of
Rule 17(a) (ii) and 10(e) of the Telangana State & Subordinate
Service Rules, 1996 as he is a direct recruit in the initial cadre
and cannot be reverted, and the petitioner vide letter
dt.11.05.2020 submitted his explanation and requested the
respondents to drop the proposed action of discharging him
from service.
2.3 It is further contended by the petitioner that the 2nd
respondent vide proceeding No.RC/ENC/H2/18051123/2018
dt.05.09.2020 terminated the petitioner from service with
immediate effect. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
3. The respondents filed counter denying the material
contention of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner
joined duty on 06.06.2016 in IB Sub-Division Nalgonda of IB
Division Nalgonda of Irrigation Circle, Nalgonda. Later, he was
6 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
transferred to I.B. Sub-Division, Choutupal of I.B. Division,
Bhongir, and reported to duty on 01.12.2016. On 09.04.2018,
the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nalgonda Range, through a radio
message informed that the petitioner while working in I.B.
Section, Bhongir, was trapped on 07.04.2018 at 17:30 by the
ACB authorities when he demanded and accepted the bribe
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant. A case was
registered against him and the ACB authorities have informed
that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on the
same day and was in the custody for a period exceeding 48
hours.
3.1 It is further contended by the respondents that the
petitioner was trapped in the ACB case on 07.04.2018 which
was within the period of his probation and his probation was not
declared, as such, the petitioner was a temporary employee. As
per existing rules, the services of a temporary Government
servant can be terminated in accordance with the rules and
sanction is not required under section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, if the public servant is no longer in service at
the time the Court takes cognizance of the offence. Therefore,
the Government decided to take action for termination. As per
7 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
Rule 10(e) of A.P. and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 the
appointing Authority shall have the right to terminate the
service of a person who has been appointed under Sub-Rule (a)
of Rule 10 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules,
1996 at any time without assigning any reason and without any
notice, if appointed by direct recruitment, revert to a lower
category or grade, if promoted, or revert to the post from which
such appointment by transfer was made, if appointed by
transfer. Hence, the petitioner was terminated under Rule 10(e)
as he was appointed purely on temporary basis vide Engineer-
in-Chief (AW) proceedings No.RC/ENC/A1/110/Zone-VI/2015
PSC dt.26.05.2016. As per Rule 17 a(ii) the appointing authority
may at any time, before or after the expiry of the prescribed
period of probation either extend by nor more than one year,
whether on duty or otherwise, the period of probation of a
probationer in case the probation has not been extended under
sub-rule (b) of this rule or terminate the probation and
discharge him from the service after giving him the one month
notice or one month pay in lieu of such notice, on account of
unsatisfactorily performance or progress during training or
unsatisfactory of duties or unsatisfactorily conduct or for any
8 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
other sufficient reason to be recorded. Hence, the contention of
the petitioner is not correct.
3.2 It is further contended by the respondents that, a
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he
should not be discharged from service in terms of the Rule 10(e)
& Rule (17)(a)(ii) TS Rules, 1996. The petitioner has submitted
his explanation on 11.05.2020 and the same was submitted to
the Government vide Engineer-in-Chief (AW) I & CAD
Department Lr.No.RC/ENC/H2/18051123/2018 dt.30.06.2020,
and the Government after careful examination, have instructed
Engineer-in-Chief (AW) I & CAD Department to take necessary
action duly terminating the services of the petitioner as ordered
vide Government Memo No.3573/Vig.1/A1/2018-2
dt.19.03.2020 and as per Rules. The authority empowered to
dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied
that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing,
it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. The
misconduct alleged against the petitioner is that he entered the
service through T.S.P.S.C. in the year 2016 and as per Rule
10(e) of TS Rules, 1996 discharging him from service would not
lead to legal issues.
9 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
3.3 It is further contended by the respondents that being
in the rank of Assistant Engineer, the petitioner involved in a
moral turpitude case on his own private action, due to which, he
was placed under suspension and terminated subsequently and
the ACB case is still pending and after careful examination of
the explanation of the petitioner, Government have directed
Engineer-in-Chief to take action as ordered vide Govt. Memo
dated 19.03.2020 duly terminating the services of the petitioner
as he was trapped by the ACB Authorities on 07.04.2018, i.e.
within the period of probation and the employee who is facing
serious charge i.e criminal/ACB cases that too under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot seek for revocation of
termination. However, it is an admitted fact that petitioner was
a temporary employee and since it was a temporary
appointment, he is liable to be terminated at any point of time
without prior notice and without assigning any reason thereof as
per rule 10(e) and 17 a (ii), the petitioner has been terminated.
4. Heard Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II
appearing for respondents. Perused the record.
10 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the termination of services of the petitioner was
without conducting any enquiry and is in gross violation of
Article 311 of the Constitution and the respondents have failed
to record reasons for coming to the conclusion of unsatisfactory
conduct which creates a stigma on the petitioner and is
sufficient for discharge of a probationer in terms of Rule 17(a)(ii)
if the State and Service Subordinate Rules, 1996 and no proper
enquiry was conducted or reasons given but the reason was
merely that upon careful examination of the entire matter, the
respondents decided to terminate the services of the petitioner.
5.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the termination order was passed only with a
view that the ACB/Government tackle section 19 of the P.C Act
that prior sanction of the government was required to launch
prosecution against a public servant in service and only to evade
such procedure, that the petitioner was terminated from service,
the above said sanction would not be necessary and as such,
the 1st respondent, for the sake of convenience, ordered that the
11 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
petitioner be terminated from service for the ACB to launch
prosecution. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for
the respondents argued that as per Rule 10(e) of the A.P State
and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the appointing authority
shall have the right to terminate the service of a person at any
time without assigning any reason and without any notice and
was hence terminated under Rule 10(e) as he was appointed
purely on temporary basis and the 2nd respondent also issued
one month's prior notice to the petitioner under Rule 17(a)(ii) of
the Rules, 1996 calling for explanation and after due chance
given, the 2nd respondent after careful examination terminated
the services of the petitioner in accordance with law.
6.1 Learned Government Pleader for the respondents
further argued that the Director General, ACB, Telangana Stat,
vide Lr.dt.14.12.2020 has informed the respondents that
pursuant to the termination of the petitioner from the service,
the ACB authorities filed charge-sheet against the petitioner
before the Court of I Addl. Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases,
12 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
Hyderabad, on 13.11.2020 and no relief can be granted to the
petitioner as the case is pending before the trial Court and
prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. The point for determination is, whether the impugned
proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent upon the direction of
the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside?
8. It is necessary to first extract the concerned rules and
provisions for adjudication of the matter at hand. Looking into
the rules of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules,
1996;
Rule 10 (e):"The appointing authority shall have the
right to terminate the service of a person who has
been appointed under sub-rule (a), at any time,
without assigning any reason and without any
notice, if appointed by direct recruitment, revert to a
lower category or grade, if promoted, or revert to the
post from which such appointment by transfer was
made, if appointed by transfer."
Rule 17(a)(ii):"The appointing authority may, at any
time, before or after the expiry of the prescribed
period of probation either extend by not more than
one year, whether on duty or otherwise, the period of
13 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
probation of a probationer, in case the probation has
not been extended under sub-rule (b) of this rule or
terminate his probation and discharge him from
service after giving him one month's notice or one
month's pay in lieu of such notice, on account of
unsatisfactory performance or progress during
training or unsatisfactory performance of duties or
unsatisfactory conduct or for any other sufficient
reason to be recorded in writing."
And section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988which provides for
Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. --
"(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15
alleged to have been committed by a public servant,
except with the previous sanction,--
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in
connection with the affairs of the Union and is not
removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the Central Government, of that
Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in
connection with the affairs of a State and is not
removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the State Government, of that
Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority
competent to remove him from his office."
14 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
9. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was under
probation period at the time of the alleged offence. The 2nd
respondent gave an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his
version and the petitioner submitted his explanation. Upon
careful examination of the matter, the 2nd respondent passed the
impugned proceedings, terminating the services of the
petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that, he was not given
a chance to explain himself is not correct.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
the judgments of the Apex Court in Ratnesh Kumar
Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences,
Patna1; and in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro
Industries Corporation. Ltd.,2. Going through the first
judgment relied by the petitioner, it is observed that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that when an enquiry commenced and
thereafter without framing of charges or without holding an
enquiry the delinquent employee was dismissed, there would be
clear violation of natural justice. The above case would not
(2015) 15 SCC 151
(1999) 2 SCC 21
15 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
apply to the present case as no enquiry was conducted by the
respondents herein, for which reasons were also given.
11. Whereas in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra) which is
the second judgment relied by the counsel for the petitioner, the
relevant para is as follows:
"34. But in cases where the termination is preceded by
an enquiry and evidence is received and findings as to
misconduct of a definitive nature are arrived at behind
the back of the officer and where on the basis of such a
report, the termination order is issued, such an order
will be violative of the principles of natural justice
inasmuch as the purpose of the enquiry is to find out the
truth of the allegations with a view to punish him and
not merely to gather evidence for a future regular
departmental enquiry. In such cases, the termination is
to be treated as based or founded upon misconduct and
will be punitive. These are obviously not cases where
the employer feels that there is a mere cloud against the
employee's conduct but are cases where the employer
has virtually accepted the definitive and clear findings
of the enquiry officer, which are all arrived at behind the
back of the employee -- even though such acceptance of
findings is not recorded in the order of termination. That
is why the misconduct is the foundation and not merely
the motive in such cases."
12. The counsel for the petitioner further relied upon an order
of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 3465 of 20213 wherein a
similar issue fell for consideration and this Hon'ble Court
observed as follows:
Sattu Anil Vs. State of Telangana, decided on 16.02.2021
16 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
"5. Since petitioner is a probationer, the conduct
and performance of petitioner is subject to more
strict scrutiny and conduct, disobedience,
dereliction of duty can result in termination of his
probation. However, ordinarily it has to be
termination simplicitor and not to reflect the
misconduct. Termination simplicitor must be
preceded by notice of one month or pay of one
month without indicating reasons for termination. In
the instant case, order refers to alleged trap laid by
Anti Corruption Bureau on demand and acceptance
of bribe for doing official favour. Therefore, it is
clear that termination of petitioner is not on account
of assessment of suitability as Sub-Inspector of
Police, but because of his involvement in the
allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Thus, as order is stigmatic on the face of it, Rule
17(a) (ii) of Telangana State and Subordinate
Service Rules, 1996 is not complied as it was not
preceded by notice and opportunity. Thus, order is
not sustainable and accordingly set aside. Matter
remanded to the appointing authority to take
appropriate course of action as warranted by law."
13. It is difficult to understand as to how the above
referred judgments would support the contentions of the
petitioner as the facts speak otherwise. In the case on hand, the
petitioner was duly given a chance to explain himself
subsequent to the issuance of one months' prior notice as
contemplated under the above discussed rules and the
petitioner has submitted his explanation as well. Further, the
respondents have clearly assigned the reason for not holding
17 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
enquiry stipulated under Rule 17(a)(ii) of the Telangana State
and Subordinate Service Rules with the reason that it is not
feasible to conduct enquiry by the respondents as the petitioner
is involved in ACB case and the truth would be unearthed only
upon trial before the competent Court of Law.
14. The respondents have critically analysed the issue of
the petitioner and upon careful examination, have come to the
conclusion that the petitioner's conduct was unsatisfactory and
could not hold and enquiry and the reasons were recorded to
that effect was with the petitioner's involvement in the ACB case.
It is also clear that there being many precedents which hold that
putting a stigma to a delinquent employee behind the back of
the employee cannot sustain. It is clear from the record that
the respondents have not gone into the guilt of the petitioner but
have just not taken the risk to continue the petitioner due to the
involvement of above said ACB case. The actions of the
respondents are not punitive and it is clear that the petitioner
was merely discharged from his duty, which amounts to
termination simpliciter which would mean that no stigma is
casted upon the petitioner. The petitioner was aware of every
step of the respondents through proper channel and the
18 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
respondents rightly disclosed their steps to the petitioner. The
respondents have kept in mind the rule position and the
exigency in the issue at hand and have passed the impugned
order.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that this Court is not
expressing any view as to merits vis-ā-vis the alleged
involvement of the petitioner in the said criminal case. The
respondents submitted that the ACB case against the petitioner
is pending adjudication before the I Addl. Special Judge for SPE
& ACB cases, Hyderabad, and as rightly contended by them,
relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted at this juncture
in absence of outcome of the trial. As such, the Writ Petition
fails and is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is
needless to say that if the petitioner is acquitted in the said
criminal case, the respondents shall consider reinstating him
into service in accordance with Law. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if
any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J
19 RRN,J
WP No.22223 of 2020
20th day of January, 2022
BDR
