V.V.Rama Rao vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 2182 Tel

Telangana High Court

V.V.Rama Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 14 February, 2025

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                   WRIT PETITION No.25152 of 2024
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

".... writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent placing the petitioner under suspension and framing the charges against him vide Rc.No.A1/2211/2024, dated 04.08.2024 as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles of 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides being contrary to the Rules 4 and 6 of the Punishment Rules, 1987 apart from the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in a decision reported in 2017 (3) ALT 225 and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits ....."

2) Heard Sri A.Phani Bhushan, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for

respondents 1 and 2, and Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned Standing

Counsel for Endowments, appearing for respondent No.3.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the

petitioner was working as Executive Engineer (Electrical),

respondent No.3 had issued the impugned proceedings dated

04.08.2024 placing the petitioner under suspension alleging that

out of 95 outsourcing employees working in E&M Department, 12

individuals were absent for duties and in those vacancies without

therebeing any permission or intimation to the contract Agency, 12

other individuals were engaged and work was extracted from them.

Learned counsel has contended that the suspension of the

PK, J W.P.No.25152_2024

petitioner is at the instance of the Chairman of respondent No.3.

As per Rules enunciated under G.O.Ms.No.830, dated 18.08.1989,

the Executive Officer is competent to place an employee/petitioner

under suspension with an independent mind, but, in the instant

case the impugned suspension order of the petitioner is issued

basing on the opinion said to have been given by the Chairman of

respondent No.3 Temple. As such, the impugned order is liable to

be set aside. Learned counsel has further contended that as per

Section 37 (3)(b) of The Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious

Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, as against the order of

suspension, the appeal would lie to the Chairman of the concerned

Temple, but, in the instant case, the suspension itself is based on

the opinion given by the Chairman. As such, preferring an appeal

to the Chairman would be a futile exercise. Learned counsel has

further submitted that alternative remedy is not a bar for invoking

the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

3.1) Learned counsel has further contended that as per the

provisions of Conduct Rules, 1987, the suspension as well as the

charge memo are distinct and different from each other. Hence,

both cannot be clubbed together. In the instant case, the third

respondent has failed to draw/make such a distinction between

the suspension and charge memo, which clearly indicates non-

PK, J W.P.No.25152_2024

application of mind by respondent No.3. Hence, the impugned

order is liable to be set aside on this ground also.

3.2) Learned counsel has further contended that as per Rule 6 of

Punishment Rules, 1987, an Office-holder may be placed under

suspension by the Executive Officer and similarly issuance of

charge memo is governed by Rule 4 thereof. Clubbing both the

powers and provisions at one instance in same proceedings is

unheard of service jurisprudence. As such, the impugned order is

unsustainable. Further, the office of respondent No.3 had entered

into an agreement with M/s.Suraksha Security for sponsoring 95

individuals on outsourcing basis to attend the needs of the Temple

and therefore the office of respondent No.3 alone is competent to

verify the particulars of the individuals who were engaged on

outsourcing basis and at the same time it is the responsibility of

the outsourcing agency to provide the individuals in total capacity

and petitioner is not concerned with the duty of attendance of the

outsourcing employee and it is for the Administration Department

to look after the same. Therefore, for the lapses committed by the

Administration Department, petitioner cannot be penalized.

Petitioner never issued any single appointment order to any

individual to work on outsourcing basis in respondent No.3

Institution. Further, all the appointments were made by the office

of respondent No.3. Therefore, placing the petitioner under

PK, J W.P.No.25152_2024

suspension is wholly unwarranted. It is the duty cast upon the

disciplinary authority to exercise the power to place an employee

under suspension sparingly and suspension should not be made

as an administrative routine or automatic consequence of alleged

disobedience and detailed assessment must be made. Respondent

No.3 has issued the impugned suspension order without verifying

the relevant material and in a mechanical manner to satisfy

somebody else. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to

set aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2024 and allow the writ

petition.

4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that

M/s.Suraksha Security Services, Hyderabad, vide its letter dated

03.08.2024 has stated that permission was given to a total number

of 95 persons to work in E&M Water Works Section, out of whom,

12 persons left the job without intimating to the said Organization.

Yet, without intimating the same to the said Organization and by

using the same ID number, work was derived by unauthorized

persons and salaries were paid as per the Muster certified by the

said Section, contrary to the procedure to be followed. Further, as

per the procedure, if any member of such staff left the duty or

removed from duty, the details shall be intimated in advance to the

outsourcing agency and in the said vacancy, the eligible persons

shall be engaged through the agency. Instead, the petitioner with

PK, J W.P.No.25152_2024

his self decision had engaged 12 persons without giving any

advance intimation or without taking any prior permission from

the office, which gave room for several criticisms against

respondent No.3. Therefore, the petitioner was rightly placed

under suspension and charges were also framed against him for

his gross negligence. Hence, there are no merits in the writ

petition and the same may be dismissed.

5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by

respective parties.

6) A perusal of the material on record discloses that the

petitioner was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated

04.08.2024 on the ground that he had engaged 12 persons without

following due procedure and he was also issued a charge memo by

framing as many as 8 charges. At that stage, the petitioner has

approached this Court. It is settled proposition of law that

quashment of a charge sheet cannot be as a matter of course as it

amounts to nipping the proceedings at the bud.

7) In this context, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v.

Prabhash Chandra Mirdha 1 wherein it is held as under:

(2012) 11 SCC 565

PK, J W.P.No.25152_2024

"8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance."

(emphasis added)

8) In view of the above settled principle of law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that

the charge sheet cannot be quashed at an initial stage in a routine

manner as it would be premature to deal with the issue. Therefore,

the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

9) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

No order as to costs.

____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 14-02-2025 sur