Telangana High Court
P. Rajeev vs Sandeep Kumar Sultania on 12 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.18466 OF 2021;
CONTEMPT CASE NO.361 OF 2022
AND
I.A.NO.2 OF 2021 IN W.P.NO.18466 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER
W.P.No.18466 of 2021
In W.P.No.18466 of 2021, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the Charge
Memo in G.O.Rt.No.140, School Education (SE-Vig) Department,
dt.11.10.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to set aside
the same and further to declare the action of the respondents in not
effecting promotion to the petitioner as Additional Director as illegal
and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner for promotion as Additional Director on par with
his contemporaries with effect from 08.03.2021 with all consequential
benefits, such as seniority, arrears of pay, etc., and to pass such other
order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of W.P.No.18466 of 2021 are
that the petitioner was directly recruited as Deputy Educational Officer
on 29.12.2008 and was subsequently promoted as District Educational
Officer on 02.05.2012 and thereafter as Regional Joint Director,
Warangal on 27.10.2017 and was transferred to the post of Joint
Director, Model Schools on 09.12.2019. The petitioner was working as
Joint Director, Samagra Shiksha at the time of filing of the Writ Petition.
It is submitted that while the petitioner was working as District
Educational Officer, Warangal for a very brief period, namely from
28.08.2015 to 10.10.2016, the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation
(GWMC) took up road widening project during April, 2015 and that the
then District Educational Officer who received notices about the road
widening from the Commissioner, GWMC, appears to have given his
consent, whereunder, around 887 square metres of land of Government
High School, Subedari was likely to be affected. It is submitted that after
the petitioner joined as District Educational officer, Warangal on
28.08.2015 and when the road widening was under process, the
petitioner immediately reported the said development to his higher
officials, i.e., Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal,
vide letter RC.No.6109/C3/2015 dt.29.07.2016 and the same was
informed to the 2nd respondent by the concerned Regional Director and
accordingly the land was restored to the school authorities. It is
submitted that the said fact of the petitioner informing the Regional
Joint Director and restoring the land to the school authorities was not
considered by the Vigilance authorities and based on the Vigilance
Report, a Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.140
dt.11.10.2019. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.11.2019
and a further additional explanation on 29.07.2021. But the explanation
submitted by the petitioner was not considered and the petitioner was
ignored for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee
which was constituted and conducted vide proceedings on 08.02.2021. It
is submitted that six posts of Joint Director fell vacant and since the
petitioner was within the zone of consideration, he was entitled to be
considered for promotion, but in view of the Charge Memo
dt.25.10.2019, the petitioner was not considered. The petitioner
submitted that though the Charge Memo was issued on 25.10.2019 and
the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 23.11.2019, the letter
dt.09.03.2021 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner and the letter dt.19.04.2021 requesting to drop the charges and
letter dt.02.07.2021 requesting to include his name in the DPC and the
letter dt.02.07.2021 also requesting to take steps to drop charges, were
all ignored and according to the petitioner, there is absolutely no
progress in the departmental enquiry. It is submitted that neither any
enquiry officer was appointed nor is his case being considered for
promotion. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner was also
referred to the Registrar, Institution of A.P. and T.S. Lokayukta,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and a copy was also marked to respondent
No.2, but no further proceedings were issued by the authorities so far. It
is submitted that there are two posts of Additional Directors which are
available in the Department and the petitioner's case can be considered
in any of the existing or future vacancies without reference to the
Charge Memo. The petitioner is also challenging the Charge Memo in
this Writ Petition.
3. Vide orders dt.10.08.2021, this Court had granted interim
direction as prayed for, i.e., directing the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner to the post of Additional Director of School
Education without reference to the Charge Memo dt.11.10.2019 pending
disposal of the main Writ Petition. However, the said interim order was
not complied with by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner has
filed C.C.No.361 of 2022.
4. In the meanwhile, the respondents have filed a vacate petition in
I.A.No.2 of 2021 and therefore, the vacate petition as well as the
Contempt Case are both taken up for hearing together.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this
Court to G.O.Rt.No.140, School Education (SE.Vig) Department,
dt.11.10.2019 and Annexure-I thereto, wherein articles of charge
levelled against the petitioner are mentioned. From the said article, it is
noticed that the allegation against the petitioner was that he being
District Educational Officer, Karimnagar District and successor to Sri
Y.Chandra Mohan, Former District Educational Officer, has neither
reported the surrendering of land to an extent of 887 square metres
pertaining to the Government High School, Subedari to Greater
Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal, to the higher authorities
nor has taken steps to stop the occupation of the school land by the
GWMC and construction in the premises even after knowing that the
transfer of land to Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation was not
permitted by the competent authority and therefore, he exhibited
slackness and negligence towards his legitimate duties and contravened
Rule 3 of the Telangana State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He
has also referred to the letter addressed by Sri Y.Balaiah, Regional Joint
Director of School Education, Warangal to the Registrar, Institution of
AP&TS Lokayukta to take action against the predecessor of the
petitioner, i.e., Y.Chandra Mohan, District Educational Officer,
Nalgonda, who had given consent for the occupation of the land by
GWMC without getting the approval from the authorities. He has also
referred to the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the Secretary to
Government of Telangana, Education Department (Vigilance),
dt.20.11.2019 about the entire incident and that as soon as he came to
know about the news in the newspaper publication on 04.12.2015, he
immediately visited the GHS, Subedari, Hanamkonda School and
brought the matter to the notice of the then Deputy Chief Minister and
Minister for School Education, Government of Telangana Sri Kadiyam
Srihari garu through e-mail dt.04.12.2015 as well as RJDSE, Warangal.
It is submitted that the petitioner has taken all steps to see that the land
of the school is not surrendered but he is being punished for no wrong
on his part. It is submitted that the petitioner has assumed the charge
only on 28.08.2015 and even though the petitioner has informed about
the construction by GWMC vide e-mail dt.04.12.2015, no action was
taken and he has not received any instructions from higher authorities
regarding the steps to stop occupation of the land till 10.10.2016. It is
submitted that on 11.10.2016, the petitioner joined as DEO, Karimnagar.
It is submitted that thereafter, no steps have been taken by the
authorities for either conducting an enquiry or for dropping the
proceedings against the petitioner. He therefore placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali
Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi 1 for the proposition that
departmental enquiry should be concluded within a reasonable period,
i.e., within six months from the date of initiation. He therefore prayed
for setting aside of the Charge Memo and a direction to consider the
case of the petitioner for promotion.
6. Learned Special Government Pleader, however, relied upon the
averments made in the vacate petition and the counter affidavit filed
therewith and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
AIR 2016 Supreme Court 101 : 2016 LAB.I.C.533
7. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the impugned Charge
Memo was issued on the basis of the report of the General
Administration (Vigilance & Enforcement) Department dt.18.11.2017. It
is stated that the explanation submitted by the petitioner has been
forwarded to the Government for taking further action in the matter and
the matter is under examination. As regards the request for consideration
of the case of the petitioner for promotion, it is stated that there are six
existing vacancies for promotion to the post of Additional Director of
School Education in the State for the panel year 2016-2017 issued in
G.O.Ms.No.11, School Education (Ser.I) Department dt.13.04.2017. It is
submitted that the panel year 2016-2017 ended at roster point No.5 and
the panel started from roster point No.6 for the panel year 2020-2021. It
is submitted that if the said roster points are followed, there are seniors
to the petitioner who would be coming under the zone of consideration
for placing before the Departmental Promotion Committee. The names
of the five officers who were considered for promotion to the post of
Additional Director of School Education are given and it is stated that
the petitioner stood at Serial No.6 in the seniority list and therefore did
not come under the zone of consideration. It is also stated that no juniors
to the petitioner were promoted as Additional Director of School
Education as per the State and Subordinate Service Rules. A copy of the
Vigilance report dt.26.10.2018 which formed the basis for issuance of
the Charge Memo against the petitioner herein, is filed. As seen
therefrom, action has been initiated against the predecessor DEO of the
petitioner, i.e., Y.Chandra Mohan as well as the petitioner herein.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the counter
affidavit, the respondents have admitted that there are six vacancies of
Additional Director and also that only five officers have been considered
against the said posts and therefore, the petitioner being the next
candidate in rank should be considered for promotion without reference
to the Charge Memo.
9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record, this Court finds that the only allegation against the petitioner is
that he has not taken steps to stop construction or occupation of the
Government school land by GWMC and that he did not inform the
higher authorities about the same. The Vigilance report is dated
18.11.2017, whereas the petitioner claims to have informed the higher
ups on 04.12.2015. However, the petitioner has not placed the copy of
the e-mail before this Court except making reference to it in the
affidavit. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem
Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi (1 supra), the
Government ought to have concluded the disciplinary proceedings
expeditiously, i.e., within a period of six months from the date of
initiation of the proceedings. The petitioner has admittedly submitted his
explanation and also defence statement, but the Government has not
taken any action thereafter. The Charge Memo was issued in the year
2019 and in spite of lapse of nearly four years, no action has been taken
by the Department even in appointing an enquiry officer. For this reason
alone, the action against the petitioner should be dropped. However, in
the interest of justice, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the
respondents to conclude the enquiry against the petitioner within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and
if the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within the said period,
then the disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to have been dropped
against the petitioner. And in the meantime, the case of the petitioner
shall be considered for promotion to the post of Additional Director
without reference to the Charge Memo subject to the outcome of the
disciplinary proceedings.
10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No
order as to costs.
11. As regards the Contempt Case, this Court finds that there was an
interim direction to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of
Additional Director of School Education. However, the respondents
have not considered the same. Admittedly, there is a post of Additional
Director which is vacant and therefore, the respondents should have
considered the case of the petitioner for promotion subject to the
outcome of the Writ Petition. But the respondents have not done so by
relying upon the vacate petition filed. However, in the final order even
dated, this Court has directed the respondents to consider and promote
the petitioner to the post of Additional Director subject to the final
outcome of the Writ Petition. Subject to the compliance of the above
direction, the Contempt Case is closed.
12. As a sequel, I.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.P.No.18466 of 2021 is
dismissed.
13. In the result,
(i) W.P.No.18466 of 2021 is disposed of with the above
directions.
(ii) C.C.No.361 of 2022 is closed.
(iii) I.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.P.No.18466 of 2021 is dismissed.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs in these cases.
14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in W.P.No.18466 of
2021 and in C.C.No.361 of 2022, including I.A.No.1 of 2023 in
C.C.No.361 of 2022 shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 12.03.2024
Svv
