G. Shankar vs State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 1599 Tel

Telangana High Court

G. Shankar vs State Of Telangana on 31 January, 2025

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                    WRIT PETITION No.12447 of 2023
ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 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 2ndRespondent in imposing the punishment stoppage of three (3) annual grade increments with cumulative effect without assigning any reasons, vide CCLA's PROCGS. NO. VSII2/203/2019 dated 04-01-2023 based on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer, as being arbitrary, illegal, irrational, grossly disproportionate to the allegations said to have been proved and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and set- aside the same accordingly and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be sanctioned increments with attendant benefits in the interest of justice and to pass..."

2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Tahsildar

at Chennur, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him vide

proceedings dated 21.06.2019 issued by respondent No.2 and four charges

were leveled against him pertaining to two erroneous entries during

digitization of the revenue records, which caused revenue loss to the

Government. As such, he was placed under suspension vide proceedings

dated 21.06.2019. Subsequently, after conducting a detailed enquiry, he

was initially imposed with a punishment of compulsory retirement from

service, then, reduction to lower post i.e., Naib Tahsildar, and ultimately,

he was imposed with the impugned punishment of stoppage of three

annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide CCLA's proceedings

PK, J

No.VSII(2)/203/2019 dated 04.01.2023. Assailing the same, the present

writ petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I on behalf of the

respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2

had omitted to consider that the petitioner was placed as in-charge at

Nirmal (U) unit in addition to his regular posting at Nirmal (R) unit and

that only two errors occurred unknowingly out of the 21,766 revenue

Khatas and there is no intentional lapse on the part of the petitioner so as

to constitute misconduct. Further, respondent No.2 had also omitted to

consider that the Enquiry Officer gave a categorical finding that no revenue

loss is caused to the Government. It is further contended that respondent

No.2 ought to have considered that it was the petitioner who brought the

lapses to the notice of the superior officer and got the entries blocked,

since he was not vested with the said power. Further, the findings of the

Enquiry Officer are based on surmises as the same would start the

expression, 'appears that', and thus, it is settled law that no punishment

can be imposed based on surmises and conjunctures. As such, the

findings of the Enquiry Officer are erroneous, and any punishment based

on such findings would be equally initiated.

PK, J

5. It is further contended that respondent No.2 ought to have

considered that even the Enquiry Officer held that it was only an error on

the part of the petitioner, and imposing a major penalty of stoppage of

annual grade three increments with cumulative effect is grossly

disproportionate to the nature of allegations held to have been proved, that

too, when the petitioner has less than two years of service. Further, both

the Enquiry Officer and respondent No.2 had omitted to note that the

petitioner did not issue the Pattadar Passbooks in respect of subject land

and the findings of the Enquiry Officer in this regard are quite erroneous

and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is highly vitiated.

Therefore, the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments

with cumulative effect imposed by respondent No.2 on the basis of

erroneous findings of the Enquiry Officer is illegal, arbitrary, unjust,

disproportionate to the nature of allegations held to have been proved and

contrary to the provisions of Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and also in violation of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, learned counsel for the

petitioner prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the present writ

petition.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Leader for Services-I appearing

for the respondents contended that due to the irregularities committed by

PK, J

the petitioner, he was placed under suspension vide order dated

21.06.2019 passed by respondent No.2 and an Article of Charge, vide

proceedings dated 21.06.2019, was also issued to the petitioner.

Thereafter, he submitted his explanation, but having been dissatisfied with

the said explanation, the respondents appointed the Joint Collector,

Nirmal District, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the

allegations leveled against the petitioner. After conducting a detailed

enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, holding the charges

against the petitioner as proved. Basing on the said enquiry report, a

major punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on

the petitioner vide proceedings dated 13.03.2020. However, aggrieved by

the said punishment order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7203 of 2020 before

this Court, and this Court vide order dated 28.05.2020, directed the

respondent to re-consider the punishment order issued by respondent

No.2 dated 13.03.2020, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with

law. As such, in compliance of the said order of this Court, respondent

No.2 examined the case of the petitioner and awarded the penalty of

reduction to a lower post i.e., Deputy Tahsildar vide proceedings dated

31.07.2020, in terms of Rule 9 of the CCA Rules 1991. Thereafter, the

petitioner once again approached this Court and filed W.P.No.13199 of

2020 assailing the punishment order dated 31.07.2020, and this Court

PK, J

vide order dated 30.12.2021, set aside the said punishment order, holding

that it was contrary to Rule 9 (vii)(b) of CCA Rules.

7. It is further submitted that that the respondents filed an appeal

against the order of this Court before a Division Bench of this Court vide

W.A.No.242 of 2022, and the Division Bench, vide judgment dated

06.09.2022, while declining to interfere with the order of the learned Single

Judge, directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order of

punishment in respect of the petitioner herein, strictly in accordance with

law, keeping in view the observations made by the learned Single Judge.

Therefore, in compliance of the said judgment, and after examining the

Article of Charge, explanation submitted by the petitioner and the findings

of the Enquiry Officer, the impugned penalty of stoppage of three annual

grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the

petitioner vide impugned order dated 04.01.2023 that was imposed in

accordance with Rule 9 (vi) of CCA Rules, 1991. As such, the respondents

are justified in issuing the impugned order dated 04.01.2023. It is further

contended that the petitioner has filed the present petition without availing

an alternative remedy available under law. Therefore, it is prayed to

dismiss the present writ petition.

8. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by learned

counsel for the respective parties.

PK, J

9. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is assailing the

impugned order dated 04.01.2023 passed by respondent No.2, whereby,

the petitioner was subjected to a major penalty of stoppage of three annual

grade increments with cumulative effect. However, as can be seen from

the record, the petitioner has approached this Court filing the present writ

petition, without first availing/exhausting the alternative remedy of filing

an appeal, as per Rule 33 of the CCA Rules, 1991, before the appellate

authority as per Rule 34 of the CCA Rules, 1991. The relevant portion of

the said Rules is extracted hereunder:

"Orders against which appeal lies

33. (1) Subject to the provisions of rule 32 a Government servant may prefer an appeal, as hereinafter provided, against all or any of the following orders, namely:-

(ii) an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 9 or rule 10 whether made by the disciplinary authority or by an appellate or revising authority;"

"Appellate authorities:

34. (1) A Government Servant, including a person who has ceased to be in Government service, may prefer an appeal against all or any of the orders specified in rule 33 to the authorities as follows:-

(ii) An appeal from an order imposing on a member of a state service any of the penalties specified in rule 9 or placing such member under suspension under rule 8 passed by the Head of the Department shall lie to the Government and an appeal from an order passed by a lower authority shall lie to the Head of the Department."

PK, J

10. It is also a well-settled principle of law that when an alternative

remedy is available, the Courts refrain from exercising their writ

jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. The

Hon'ble Apex Court, in Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of

Himachal Pradesh 1, summarized the following principles on the

maintainability of a writ petition before the High Court:

"27. The principles of law which emerge are that:

27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well.

27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition.

One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.

27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.

27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law.

27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.

27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.

1 (2021) 6 SCC 771

PK, J

11. Furthermore, in M/s. Srini Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of

India 2, a Division Bench of this Court has specifically held that the writ

jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

cannot be invoked if there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to

the aggrieved party. As such, this Court is not inclined to invoke its writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. In that view of the matter, since the petitioner has not utilized the

alternative remedy of filing an appeal before respondent No.1, this Court

deems it appropriate to dispose of the present Writ Petition granting liberty

to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before respondent No.1 against the

impugned punishment order dated 04.01.2023 passed by respondent

No.2, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order, in which event, respondent No.1 shall decide the appeal on

merits and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible,

strictly in accordance with law, and communicate a copy thereof to the

petitioner.

22020 SCC OnLine TS 3396

PK, J

13. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall

stand closed. No costs.

__________________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date: 31.01.2025.

GSP