Telangana High Court
P.Prem Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 7 August, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA:
HYDERABAD
***
WRIT PETITION No.13972 of 2025
Between:
P.Prem Prasad
... Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue (Excise-I) Department,
Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
....Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 07.08.2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA
CHALAPATHI 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
_______________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
2
* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA
CHALAPATHI RAO
+ WRIT PETITION No.13972 of 2025
% 07.08.2025
# Between:
P.Prem Prasad
Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary to Government,
Revenue (Excise-I) Department,
Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr. M. Murtuza Ali Faruqui
^Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. S.Satyanarayana Rao,
learned Government Pleader
for Services-I
Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 : Mr. B.Rajeshwar Reddy,
learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the State of A.P
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
2019 (1) ALD 596 (DB)
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
W.P.No.13972 OF 2025
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao)
Heard Mr. M.Murtuza Ali Faruqui, learned counsel for
petitioner, Mr. S.Satyanaryana Rao, learned Government Pleader
for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. B.Rajeshwar
Reddy, learned Government Pleader for State of Andhra Pradesh
Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5. Perused the record.
2. Aggrieved by the charge memo issued on 26.02.2018, the
instant writ petition has been filed.
3. The charge memo has been issued by the Tribunal
Constituted for Disciplinary Proceedings by the Government of
Telangana.
4. The question to be considered is did the Government of
Telangana have the jurisdiction and authority to issue charge memo
to the petitioner, who after bifurcation of the State had got
allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh and further who stood
retired from the service while working with the Government of
Andhra Pradesh w.e.f., 30.06.2016.
5. The petitioner viz., P. Prem Prasad was an employee
working with the Prohibition and Excise Department. He was
initially appointed as Excise Inspector in the year 1982, got
promoted as Assistant Excise Superintendent in the year 1996 and
further got promoted as Excise Superintendent in March 2002.
In due course of time, he was further promoted as Assistant
Commissioner on 01.01.2010 and later was promoted as Deputy
Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on 02.08.2012.
Working on the said post, he stood retired on attaining the age of
superannuation w.e.f., 30.06.2016. Till the date of retirement, there
were no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner.
The petitioner, however, in the course of settlement of his
post-retirement benefits was given only 75% of the pension.
However, the other post-retirement benefits have till date not been
settled, as per the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
6. Meanwhile, however, the instant impugned charge memo
dated 26.02.2018 has been issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings for the State of Telangana alleging that the petitioner
seems to have committed misconduct under Rule 3(1) and (2) of
the Telangana State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with
Rule 2(b) of the Telangana State Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989.
7. The petitioner has assailed the charge memo on the aspect of
certain grave irregularities said to have been committed while he
was discharging his duties in the year 2011. Thus, a plain reading
of the charge memo would clearly indicate that the alleged
misconduct was of a period which is about 7 years earlier to the
date of issuance of the charge memo. It was also more than 5 years
before the petitioner stood retired from the service. Secondly, the
petitioner retired from the service as an officer of the Government
of Andhra Pradesh and not as an officer of Government of
Telangana.
8. In the said context, we need to look into the provisions of
Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) which, for ready reference, is being reproduced
hereunder:
9. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw
pension :- [(1) The State Government reserves themselves
the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in
full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part,
whether permanently or for a specific period and of ordering
recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused, to the Government and to the local
authority if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings the
pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence
during the period of his service, including service rendered
upon re-employment after retirement:
Provided that the Telangana State Public Service
Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are
passed. [However, consultation with the Telangana Pradesh
Public Service Commission is not necessary, when the
pensioner is found guilty in any judicial proceedings.]
Provided further that where a part of pension is
withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not
be reduced below the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 45]
[Provided also that the penalty of withholding of entire
pension or gratuity or both may be imposed against the retired
Government servant upon being found guilty or upon
conviction in a court of law for the offences of grave charges
namely proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamy,
corruption, moral turpitude, forgery, outraging the modesty of
women and misconduct].
(2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-
rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in
service whether before his retirement or during his
re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the
Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this
rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by
which they were commenced in the same manner as if the
Government servant had continued in service:
Provided that where the departmental proceedings are
instituted by an authority subordinate to the State Government,
that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the
State Government.
Note :- The function of the disciplinary authority is only
to reach a finding on the charges and to submit a report
recording its findings to the Government. It is then for the
Government to consider the findings and take a final decision
under this rule. In case Government decide to take action
under this rule in the light of the findings of the disciplinary
authority, the Government will serve the person concerned
with a show-cause notice specifying the action proposed to be
taken under this rule and the person concerned will be
required to submit his reply to the show-cause notice within
such time as may be specified by the Government.
The Government will consider the reply and consult the
Telangana Public Service Commission. If as a result of such
consideration proceedings will be issued in the name of the
Government.
(b) The Departmental proceedings, if not instituted
while the Government servant was in service, whether before
his retirement or during his re-employment:
(i) xxxxx
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took
place more than four years before such institution."
9. The plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law would
clearly reflect the fact that once the Government employee stands
retired without any disciplinary proceedings, the same could not
had been initiated post-retirement without the approval and
sanction of the Government. Secondly, even if the Government
intends to initiate disciplinary proceedings, it could only be in
respect of an event or an alleged misconduct which ought to had
been committed at least within 4 years from the date of issuance of
the charge memo. As is indicated above, in the instant case, the
charge memo has been issued after a period of around 7 years from
the alleged period of incident and also is more than 5 years earlier
to his period of retirement. Thus, we do not have any hesitation in
reaching to the conclusion that the issuance of the charge memo on
26.02.2018 is per se in violation of provisions of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii).
The view of this Bench stands fortified from the decision rendered
in the recent past by the Division Bench of this High Court itself
under somewhat similar circumstances where the Division Bench is
referring to the same rule position. Almost similar set of facts have
been decided and upheld that such a charge memo which has been
issued is hit by embargo under Rule 9 (2)(b) (ii) of the Rules of
1980. The said judgment is rendered in the case of C. MALLEM
KONDAIAH vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND
OTHERS 1.
10. In addition to the aforesaid factual matrix, there is still yet
another ground which is weighing more in the mind of this Bench
i.e., whether in the light of the petitioner having stood allocated to
the State of Andhra Pradesh on the bifurcation of the two States
and for all practical reasons, he having become an officer of the
Government of Andhra Pradesh, could the charge memo be at all
issued by the Government of Telangana even if it be pertaining to
the event or period of misconduct under the unified State of Andhra
Pradesh. In the opinion of this Bench, once when the petitioner
stood allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioner
having gone and joined in the allocated State i.e., State of Andhra
Pradesh, for all practical reasons, he becomes an officer of the
2019 (1) ALD 596 (DB)
Government of Andhra Pradesh. The disciplinary authority
immediately becomes the officers superior to the petitioner in the
Government of Andhra Pradesh.
11. In the given circumstances, the disciplinary proceedings
if at all were to be initiated ought to had been initiated by the
employer under whom the petitioner was working or under
whom the petitioner has retired i.e., Government of Andhra
Pradesh. The Government of Telangana could not have usurped
the powers of the disciplinary authority for initiation of the
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the given factual
background. For this reason also, the impugned charge memo
becomes bad in law.
12. In view of the same, we are left with no other option, but to
allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order with
consequences to follow. Now that the disciplinary proceedings
stands quashed by this Court, it is expected that the Government of
Andhra Pradesh which, till date has not finalized the retirement
dues, may finalise the retirement dues forthwith within an outer
limit of three months. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
07.08.2025
Lrkm/Gnp
Lr Copy
