Telangana High Court
P.Ramachandraiah vs State Of Telangana, Revenue Dept And 3 ... on 28 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.18619 OF 2017
ORDER:
Sri R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Government Pleader for Services-I for
respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or
direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the 3rd Respondent in imposing the
punishment of stoppage of three annual
grade increments with cumulative effect in
Proc.No.A5/4502/2012, dated 02.02.2016
as illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of
the rule 20 of CCA Rules 1991 and set aside
the same and pass such other orders as this
Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
3. Brief facts:
Petitioner was appointed as Village Servant (Sethi
Sindhi) on 01.03.1993 and later appointed as Village
Revenue Officer in the year 2008 in Thorrur-II Village of
Thorrur Mandal. By proceedings dated 06.09.2012,
JAK, J
respondent No.3 placed the petitioner under suspension for
committing certain irregularities. Disciplinary proceedings
were initiated under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1991)
(for short 'Rules, 1991') and articles of charges were issued
framing three charges. An enquiry officer was appointed to
enquire into the allegations and submit an enquiry report.
The enquiry officer submitted the report on 03.08.2013
holding that the charges framed as not proved. A re-
enquiry was directed and the enquiry officer submitted a
report on 09.09.2014 holding that the charges were proved.
Disciplinary authority, basing on the findings of enquiry
officer, imposed punishment of withholding three annual
grade increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner
preferred an appeal to respondent No.2 under Rules, 1991,
which is still under consideration.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioner that petitioner was placed under
suspension for the alleged irregularities, which are false.
It is further submitted that disciplinary authority directed
JAK, J
for a re-enquiry without assigning any reasons or grounds
and that punishment imposed on the basis of the
re-enquiry report is not valid. It is also submitted that the
re-enquiry report is not based on proper appreciation of
evidence and has concluded the report in a mechanical
manner. It is pointed out that petitioner was not granted
an opportunity by the disciplinary authority while directing
re-enquiry.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent(s)
supported the order passed by respondent No.3 and
submitted that charge Nos.2 and 3 framed against
petitioner were held proved. It is further submitted that
punishment imposed is proportionate to the gravity of
charges levelled against petitioner as two of the three
charges were held proved. It is also submitted that there is
no infirmity in the procedure while conducting the enquiry
and that the order passed is valid.
6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and
considered the rival submissions.
JAK, J
7. Petitioner, while working as Village Revenue Officer
at Thorrur Village and Mandal, was placed under
suspension in excise of powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of
Rules, 1991 for committing certain irregularities.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 20 of
Rules, 1991. The substance of imputation of misconduct
in respect of which enquiry was proposed to be held was
set out in the statement of articles of charges along with
list of documents, list of witnesses and charges framed
were communicated. Petitioner offered explanation on
22.09.2012, received on 24.09.2012 and respondent No.3
on 24.09.2012 appointed an enquiry office to enquire into
the allegations and submit a report. The enquiry officer
conducted enquiry and submitted report on 30.08.2013
holding that the charges held were not proved. On the
ground that enquiry report did not speak anything about
the charges framed, the office of respondent No.3 directed
for re-enquiry. The re-enquiry report was submitted on
09.09.2014 holding that articles of charge Nos.2 and 3
were held to be proved. Basing on the said report,
disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of
JAK, J
withholding three annual grade increments with
cumulative effect. Written arguments are filed on
14.11.2023 reiterating the contentions along with extracts
of relevant portions of the Apex Court and High Court
judgments in support of the contentions.
8. It is evident from the record that charged officer filed
an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals i.e., Office of
Chief Commissioner of Land Administration on
21.03.2016. It is evident from counter affidavit filed by
respondent No.3 that office of appellate authority
(respondent No.2) sought for connected records and
specific remarks on the appeal filed by delinquent officer
for further necessary action. The same is not disputed.
It is averred in the writ affidavit that respondent No.2 did
not adjudicate the appeal till date. This Court deems it
appropriate to direct respondent No.2, without going into
merits of the case, to dispose of the said appeal
expeditiously.
JAK, J
9. In view of the submissions made and the fact that
appeal is pending adjudication before respondent No.2, as
is evident from record, petitioner is permitted to make a
representation before the appellate authority for disposal of
appeal and on receipt of such representation, respondent
No.2 shall dispose of the appeal filed by petitioner within
a period of two (02) months.
10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Date:28.06.2024
plp
