C. Srinivasa Rao vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1480 Tel

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

          WRIT PETITION No.5082 of 2022

ORDER:

This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

"....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to have his case considered and be promoted as Motor Vehicles Inspector without reference to the charges framed by the respondent No.3 vide TEC No.2/2020 dated 02.03.2020 for an alleged incident pertaining to the year 2013, with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice duly setting aside the disciplinary proceeding which are being continued pursuant to TEc No.2/2020 and the rejection memo No.1621/C3/2020 dated 01.12.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by the delay, and in violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India....."

2. Heard Sri V.Ravi Chandran, Learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the Learned Assistant

SK,J W.P.No.5082 of 2022

Government Pleader for Services-III, appearing for the

respondents.

3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner is presently working as

Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector and he is eligible and

fully qualified for the promotion to the post of Motor

Vehicle Inspector. The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB)

officials have conducted a surplice check at integrated

check post, Saloor, Nizamabad on the intervening night

of 20/21-12-2013. Upon receipt of the report from

the ACB officials, the Government had entrusted the

matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (for

brevity T.D.P) to frame charges, conduct enquiry and

send report on 22.07.2016. Accordingly, the T.D.P

framed three charges and the gist of the allegation is

that the ACB officials have seized an amount of

Rs.11,880/- from a private person purportedly engaged

SK,J W.P.No.5082 of 2022

by the petitioner. Notice of enquiry dated 20.03.200

was issued and the proceedings are yet to be

commenced before the T.D.P.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that after lapse of more than three years from

the date of surprise check, the Government had

entrusted the matter to T.D.P in the year 2016 and

the T.D.P has taken three years to frame charges

though the charges were framed on 02.03.2020 the

enquiry is yet to commence. As the respondents Nos.1

and 2 were taking up promotions to the posts of Motor

Vehicle Inspectors and the case of the petitioner was

being overlooked the petitioner was constrained to file

Writ Petition No.5068 of 2021 seeking for a direction

to the respondents therein to consider the claim of the

petitioner for promotion without reference to the

disciplinary proceedings. This court disposed of the

SK,J W.P.No.5082 of 2022

Writ Petition on 03.03.2021 directing the respondents

to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to

the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector in accordance with

the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999

and G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 30.01.1991. The respondent

No.2 issued the impugned rejection Memo

No.1621/C3/2021 dated 01.12.2021 stating that in

view of the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.257

dated 10.06.2009 the Departmental Promotion

committee had deferred the case of the petitioner for

promotion on the ground of pendency of disciplinary

proceedings.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the Government issued orders in

G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 11.11.2008 stipulating time limit

of three and six months for completion of enquires in

simple and complicated cases respectively. In the

SK,J W.P.No.5082 of 2022

instant case the date of alleged incident was nine years

back and the disciplinary proceedings are to be

vitiated and liable to be set aside and requested to

allow the writ petition.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support

of his contention, relied on the following judgments:

1. State of Punjab Vs. Chamanlal Goyal 1

2. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs.A.Rajeshwar Reddy 2

7. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Services-III, basing on the counter, submits that three

charges were framed by the T.D.P. As per Rule 7 of

Telangana Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceeding

Tribunal) Act, 1960 on conclusion of enquiry the

tribunal shall report its finding to the Government and

1. 1995 SCC (2) 570

2. 2010 (3) ALD 501 (DB)

SK,J W.P.No.5082 of 2022

under Rule-8 of the said Act the Government shall

consider the report of the Tribunal in the prescribed

manner and pass such orders as they think fit. The

matter is under sub-judice before the said Tribunal.

The Departmental Promotion Committee convened its

meeting on 04.12.2020 and the name of petitioner

was placed and his name was considered at Roster

Point No.92-OC and promotion was deferred by the

DPC as it was not feasible for inclusion of the name in

the panel in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General

Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 10.06.1999

as the petitioner was involved in a ACB Case.

8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further

submits that, as per G.O.Ms.No.66, General.

Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 30.01.1991

promotion to a higher post, who are facing disciplinary

proceedings or a criminal case whose conduct is under

SK,J W.P.No.5082 of 2022

investigation shall be deferred when charges of

misconduct are framed by the competent authority and

served on the delinquent officer or charge-sheet has

been filed in criminal court, and requested to dismiss

the writ petition.

9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Services-III relied upon the following judgment:

1. Nookala Ravinder Reddy Vs. State of Telangana Reddy 3

10. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the

considered view that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB)

officials have registered case against the petitioner in

the year 2013 and the matter was entrusted to

Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the same is

pending before it since 2016 and the respondents have

3. Unreported judgment of T.S.High Court In WP No.9388 of 2020 dated 07.07.2020

SK,J W.P.No.5082 of 2022

rejected the case of the petitioner on 01.12.2021 for

promotion as per G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999.

11. In identical matters this Court disposed of the

Writ Petition directing the Tribunal to conclude the

proceedings within the time frame by following the

judgment of this court in W.P.No.32300 of 2022 dated

22.08.2022, W.P.No.32464 of 2022 dated 18.08.2022

and W.P.No.2473 of 2023 dated 31.01.2023.

12. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed

of directing the respondent No.3 to conclude the

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within

the period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of

copy of this order. If the proceedings cannot be

conclude by any reason within a period of six (6)

months, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to

take a decision on disciplinary proceedings in

SK,J W.P.No.5082 of 2022

accordance with law, or otherwise the disciplinary

proceedings shall be deemed to have been disposed.

13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

14. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH, Date: 31.03.2003 trr