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
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
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
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
