Telangana High Court

N. Gangalatha vs The State Of Telangana on 2 July, 2025

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                   WRIT PETITION No.4094 of 2024
                                     and
                CONTEMPT CASE No.2682 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Since the lis in these cases in inter-connected, they were heard

together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I

appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. W.P.No.4094 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief:

"...to call for the records pertaining to impugned proceedings dated 02.01.2024 issued by the 1st respondent, proceedings dated 10.01.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and proceedings dated 11.01.2024 issued by the 4th respondent and set them aside as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, totally non-speaking and amounts to non-application of mind, predetermined mind and contrary to record, unconstitutional and in violation of Rule 20 of CCA Rules and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service w.e.f. 11.01.2024 and pass..."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

joined the services of the respondent Department as a Shroff, which is

a district cadre post, on 29.06.2012, and her probation was duly

PK, J

declared w.e.f., 30.06.2014, vide proceedings dated 04.06.2015.

While so, respondent No.4 placed her and two others, viz., Mrs. K.

Anusha, Junior Assistant, and Mr. T. Naresh, Joint Sub Registrar-I,

Karimnagar, under suspension vide proceedings dated 28.03.2016,

on the allegation of certain discrepancies in the office of the Joint Sub

Registrar-I, Registrar Office (OB), Karimnagar. Subsequently,

respondent No.3 issued a charge memo dated 29.07.2016, framing

five charges against the petitioner, and the same was served on the

petitioner on 06.08.2016, but no material was furnished to her along

with the said charge memo. As such, material was sought by the

petitioner vide letter dated 18.08.2016, which was furnished to her on

22.10.2016. However, it was contended that even before all this, on

the very same day of issuance of charge memo, i.e., 29.07.2016, the

District Registrar (Market Value and Audit) was already appointed as

the enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, which

goes to show that the respondents were predetermined to proceed

with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. As such, the

entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated on the ground of

prejudicial and predetermined mind.

PK, J

5. It was further submitted that the entire purpose of issuing a

charge memo seeking explanation, is to enable the charged officer to

submit his/her explanation so that a decision could be taken,

whether to proceed with the enquiry or not. However, in the case of

the petitioner, the very appointment of enquiry officer, while

simultaneously issuing the charge memo, would mean that the right

to defend her case and get it closed at the threshold itself is taken

away. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are unsustainable in

the eye of law.

6. It was further submitted that the enquiry officer conducted a

common enquiry against the petitioner and the aforesaid two

individuals, and the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation to

the enquiry officer on 24.01.2017. Thereafter, the enquiry officer

submitted his report dated 31.01.2017, holding all charges against

the petitioner as not proved, while holding all charges against Mrs. K.

Anusha, Junior Assistant, as proved and only two out of the six

charges against Mr. T. Naresh, Joint Sub Registrar-I, as proved.

However, the said enquiry report was kept in cold storage for about

two years, until it was finally furnished to the petitioner and the other

two individuals vide proceedings dated 04.10.2018, and the petitioner

PK, J

submitted her written statement to the enquiry report vide letter

dated 02.11.2018. Thereafter, the matter has again been kept in cold

storage for five years, after which, the Government issued the Memo

dated 20.05.2022, instructing respondent No.2 to direct respondent

No.3 to impose a punishment of withholding of four increments with

cumulative effect against Mr. T. Naresh and a penalty of dismissal

from service against Mrs. K. Anusha. In pursuance thereof, Mr. T.

Naresh was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of four

increments with cumulative effect, and Mrs. K. Anusha was dismissed

from service vide proceedings dated 27.09.2022, which was

challenged by her in W.P.No.40466 of 2022, wherein, this Court

granted interim orders on 03.11.2022, suspending the operation of

the dismissal order till the next date of hearing, which was eventually

extended periodically, until it was extended till the conclusion of

hearing vide order dated 30.06.2023.

7. It was further submitted that in the Government Memo dated

20.05.2022, respondent No.2 was further instructed to direct

respondent No.3 to communicate a disagreement note over the

findings of the enquiry officer in respect of the petitioner, by giving

reasons for disagreement and to obtain a representation from the

PK, J

petitioner before taking further steps in the matter. Thereafter, vide

letter dated 06.08.2022, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to

furnish the disagreement factors. In turn, respondent No.3, vide

Memo dated 27.08.2022, directed respondent No.4 to furnish the

same. Consequently, respondent No.4, vide letter dated 01.09.2022,

furnished the disagreement factors to the petitioner and sought for

her explanation. In response, the petitioner submitted her

explanation on 07.09.2022, duly enclosing her original defense

statement submitted to the disciplinary authority and enquiry officer,

and requested to drop the disciplinary proceedings as she is innocent,

and as the enquiry officer himself held the charges as not proved. It

was further contended that the proposal for disagreement came not

from respondent Nos.4, 3 or 2, but from the Government, which is

totally illegal, as there is no independent exercise of power by the

disciplinary authority, who appears to have abdicated his power, and

the same is impermissible and contrary to law.

8. It was further contended that under Rule 21(2) of the Telangana

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, a

disagreement note must have specific reasons for disagreement duly

recording separate findings, that too, within the four corners of

PK, J

evidence. However, in the case of the petitioner, the aforesaid

procedure is totally violated. Further, no reasons have been recorded

as to why the authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry

officer and also there is no discussion about the evidence as to how

the enquiry officer was wrong. Therefore, on this ground alone, the

whole proceedings deserve to the quashed. Further, the disagreement

note is, in itself, unsustainable, inasmuch as it says as if the

petitioner connived/colluded with Mrs. Anusha, even though such is

not the charge framed against the petitioner. It was further

submitted that the petitioner submitted her explanation to the alleged

disagreement note on 07.09.2022, which was forwarded to the

Government by respondent No.2, and in turn, the Government, vide

Memo dated 02.01.2024, directed respondent No.2 to direct

respondent No.3 to impose a penalty of dismissal against the

petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.3, forwarded the Memo dated

02.01.2024 to respondent No.4 vide his endorsement dated

10.01.2024, and eventually, respondent No.4 dismissed the petitioner

from service vide proceedings dated 11.01.2024. It was contended

that the disciplinary authority had no discretion in the case of the

petitioner as all the steps/decisions were taken by the Government

and respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 herein simply followed the

PK, J

instructions of the Government. As such, there is total abdication of

power by the disciplinary authority and usurpation by the

Government. It was further contended that the Memo dated

02.01.2024 of respondent No.1, the endorsement of respondent No.3

dated 10.01.2024 and the impugned dismissal order dated

11.01.2024 are all non-speaking orders, amounting to non-

application of mind. No reasons as to disagreement and dismissal of

the petitioner are assigned. Therefore, the whole proceedings are

vitiated.

9. It was further submitted that the petitioner was only assisting

the Junior Assistant, Mr. K. Anusha, and she has no role/duty in the

whole episode, and has nothing to do with the allegations. As such,

the enquiry officer had also held the charges against her as not

proved. Further, the main responsible person, Mr. T. Naresh, was

imposed with a punishment of stoppage of four increments with

cumulative effect, whereas, the petitioner has been inflicted with a

punishment of dismissal, which is highly arbitrary and

discriminatory. It was also submitted that Mrs. K. Anusha actually

never participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer held the

charges against her as proved, but when she challenged her dismissal

PK, J

order, this Court was pleased to suspend the same. As such, the

petitioner, who stands on a better footing than Mrs. K. Anusha, is

entitled for setting aside of her dismissal from service. It was further

contended that the petitioner had also lost her right to appeal,

inasmuch as the decision of dismissing the petitioner from service

was taken at the highest level, i.e., by the Government. The

authorities have totally failed to conduct the disciplinary proceedings

in accordance with the CCA Rules and the said proceedings are

vitiated at every stage, and thus, the imposition of a major penalty of

dismissal from service is highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory,

predetermined, contrary to record and in violation of the CCA Rules,

and goes to show the non-application of mind by the respondents.

Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to pass

necessary orders.

10. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services submitted

that the Joint Sub Registrar of the Registrar Office (OB), Karimnagar,

Sri T. Naresh, through his letter dated 15.11.2015, reported to

respondent No.4 that during the course of verification of stocks in the

stamp counter attached to Registrar Office (OB), some variation were

noticed, hence, requested to conduct a special audit for eliciting the

PK, J

facts. In turn, respondent No.4, vide proceedings dated 18.11.2015,

has constituted a Committee, consisting of two Sub Registrars, one

Senior Assistant and one Junior Assistant, for verification of stamps,

remittances, reconciliation statements for the period from 01.01.2013

and submit the report. After verification of stamp counter records

from 01.01.2013 to 22.01.2016, the Committee submitted its report

on 28.03.2016, concluding that an amount of Rs.70,76,926/- was

misappropriated and also reported that Smt. K. Anusha, Junior

Assistant and the petitioner herein were working in stamps counter

during that period and they are responsible for the said

misappropriation. The Committee reported that the said Junior

Assistant and the petitioner herein who dealt with the sales made on

different dates for various amounts, did not remit the amounts into

the account of the Joint Sub Registrar-I for onward transfer to the

Government Treasury. The Committee further reported that the

Junior Assistant and the petitioner herein have written fictitious

challan particulars for some entries and no challan details were

written for the remaining entries out of them, and they did not enter

the details of some of the sales of the said misappropriated amount

completely in the sales register. The Committee also stated that the

total misappropriated amount, in prima facie, arrived at

PK, J

Rs.18,52,970/- (sale through Franking machine) and Rs.52,23,956/-

in a shortage of Judicial and non-judicial labels), totaling

Rs.70,76,926/-, and that the Junior Assistant and the petitioner

herein have re-written the sale and stock particulars for certain

period in the same registers. The Committee observed that the Junior

Assistant and the petitioner herein sold away the total stamps which

were found to be short in the sale categories and received the money

from the concerned purchaser and have simply remitted the said sale

amount partially into the account of the Joint Sub Registrar-I, and

misappropriated the remaining amount. Therefore, respondent No.4

herein, who is the appointing authority for Junior Assistant and

below ranked employees, as per Rule 4 of the Telangana Ministerial

Service Rules, 1998, and S.O.No.81(1) of the Registration Manual of

the Registration Act, 1908, also being the disciplinary authority,

basing on the report of the Committee dated 18.11.2015, placed the

petitioner and the Junior Assistant under suspension on 28.03.2016.

Thereafter, a complaint was lodged before the Station House Officer, I

Town Police Station, Karimnagar vide his letter dated 28.03.2016,

which came to be registered as FIR No.129 of 2016. After completion

of the investigation, the Station House Officer filed a charge sheet

PK, J

before the Junior Civil Judge Court at Karimnagar, which was

assigned C.C.No.1200 of 2017.

11. It was further submitted that in exercise of powers conferred

under Rule 24(1)(a) of the CCA Rules, respondent No.3 issued a

charge memo vide proceedings No.S/778/1/2016 dated 29.07.2016,

framing five charges each against the petitioner and the Junior

Assistant, while framing six charges against the Joint Sub Registrar-I.

While issuing the charge memo, at paragraph 3 therein, it was

informed that that the petitioner has to submit her written statement

of defense within fifteen days of receipt of the charge memo. The

petitioner has received the charge memo on 06.08.2016, but instead

of submitting her explanation, requested for material on 17.08.2016,

and the disciplinary authority replied to the petitioner vide

proceedings dated 30.08.2016, which was acknowledged by the

petitioner on 21.09.2016. As such, the respondents also complied

with the supply of material. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has

appointed a regular enquiry officer on 22.10.2016 but not on

29.07.2016, as alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner had also

participated in the regular enquiry proceedings, and after conducting

a regular enquiry within the purview of the Telangana Civil Services

PK, J

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the enquiry officer

submitted his report on 31.01.2017, holding the charges leveled

against the petitioner as not proved, the charges against Smt. K.

Anusha, Junior Assistant, as proved and the two out of the six

charges against Sri T. Naresh, Joint Sub Registrar-I as proved.

12. It was further submitted that subsequent to the submissions of

enquiry report dated 31.01.2017, certain information was called for

from the enquiry officer as some flaws and omissions were noticed in

the enquiry report. In turn, the enquiry officer submitted his report

to the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 06.09.2018, holding that

both the petitioner and the Junior Assistant are equally responsible

for the lapses occurred. Later, the disciplinary authority and

respondent No.3 called the petitioner to submit her final statement of

defense, which was submitted by the petitioner on 02.11.2018,

through respondent No.4 vide endorsement dated 03.11.2018.

Thereafter, respondent No.3, being the disciplinary authority, sent the

punishment proposals to the Government, i.e., respondent No.1,

through respondent No.2, to comply with the instructions issued in

G.O.Ms.No.25, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated

03.02.2004, for embezzlement and misappropriation of Government

PK, J

money in her letter dated 26.02.2019. Thereafter, respondent No.1,

after careful consideration, issued orders in Memo dated 20.05.2022,

through respondent No.2, instructing to obtain tentative reasons for

the disagreement with the findings of the enquiry authority, on each

article of charge against the petitioner. Then, the disciplinary

authority communicated the disagreement factors to the petitioner in

her Memo dated 27.08.2022, through the proceedings of respondent

No.4 dated 01.09.2022, and obtained the petitioner's explanation

dated 07.09.2022.

13. It was further submitted that no independent exercise should

be there as the present case is a case misappropriation/embezzlement

of Government money. As the petitioner's explanation to the

disagreement note was not satisfactory, respondent No.3 sent the

punishment proposals to respondent No.1. Subsequently, respondent

No.1, after careful consideration of the explanation, available

material, Rules and Standing Orders framed under the Registration

Act, 1908, and the instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.25 dated

03.02.2004, instructed respondent No.2 to direct respondent No.3 to

consider and impose the penalty of dismissal from service on the

petitioner. In turn, respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated

PK, J

10.01.2024, to respondent No.4, who is the competent authority, and

requested to take further action against the petitioner. Thus,

respondent No.4, as the competent authority, has issued rightly the

impugned dismissal order dated 11.01.2024.

14. It was further submitted that as per S.O.No.791(2) of the

Registration Manual, the Shroff shall present the indent for stamps

and taking delivery of stamps, remit the sale proceeds into the Sub-

Treasury or bank. However, while submitting the records, the

petitioner has manipulated the records, which was reported in the

preliminary enquiry report. Further, as per S.O.No.790(iii)(1) of the

Registration Manual, the Sub Registrar, as Ex-Officio Stamp Vendor,

the Junior Assistant and Shroff are collectively responsible for any

shortage of stock or cash remittances unless otherwise proved.

Therefore, as per the preliminary enquiry report and regular enquiry

report, it was proved that the Stamp Counter Junior Assistant and

the petitioner herein were responsible for losses. However, though

there is no responsibility on the part of the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Sri

T. Naresh, he has accepted the punishment. The petitioner along

with Smt. K. Anusha, have written fictitious challan numbers in the

manual records and caused loss of revenue and also failed to deposit

PK, J

the amount into the Government account. As such, there is no

illegality in issuing the impugned dismissal order against the

petitioner. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ

petition.

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

learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records.

16. Admittedly, while the petitioner was working as a Shroff in the

office of respondent No.4, a charge memo dated 29.07.2016 was

issued to her, in addition to the other charged officers, i.e., Joint Sub

Registrar-I and the Junior Assistant, wherein, five chargers were

framed against the petitioner. The sum and substance of the charges

is that the petitioner and other two officers sold away the stamps, but

did not fully submit the sale proceeds into the account of the Joint

Sub Registrar-I/Ex-Officio Stamp Vendor, instead, misappropriated

the balance amount. While so, the petitioner submitted her

explanation to the charge memo dated 29.07.2016, and subsequently,

respondent No.4 appointed a presenting officer and an enquiry officer.

Here it is to be noted that the enquiry officer was appointed on the

very same day the charge memo was issued.

PK, J

17. The very purpose of issuing a charge memo is to permit the

charged employee to put forward their stand before deciding whether

an enquiry is required to be conducted or not. However, in the case

on hand, the decision to appoint an enquiry officer on the same day of

issuing the charge memo shows that the authorities had already

made up their minds to proceed against the petitioner, defeating the

whole purpose of the entire process.

18. The record discloses that after conducting the enquiry, the

enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated 31.01.2017 to

respondent No.4, holding the charges against the petitioner as not

proved. As none of the charges against the petitioner were proved in

the enquiry, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in

proceeding further and imposing any penalty, much less the extreme

penalty of dismissal from service. It is evident from the record that

the disciplinary authority issued a disagreement note against the

enquiry report dated 31.01.2017, but the same is vague and lacked

proper reasoning for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry

officer. As such, it can be inferred that the disagreement note is also

in violation of Rule 21(2) of the Telangana CCA Rules. Moreover, it

appears that the said disagreement note was issued only at the

PK, J

directions of the Government. The Government had also issued

instructions to impose the penalty of dismissal against the petitioner,

which was blindly followed by the authorities. The law, in this regard,

is well-settled that the disciplinary authority has to exercise its own

discretion and judgment, and it is not expected to act merely on the

instructions from the higher authorities.

19. It is also relevant to note that the Smt. K. Anusha, Junior

Assistant, against whom all the charges were held proved, was also

inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service. However, as

can be seen from the record, she had preferred a writ petition vide

W.P.No.40466 of 2022, challenging her dismissal order and the said

writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2024.

While setting aside her punishment order, this Court directed the

respondents to reinstate her into service and to conduct an enquiry,

afresh, duly giving an opportunity of hearing and by supplying all the

documents, on which they place reliance upon, to her. It is also

pertinent to note that the very same enquiry officer held two out of the

six charges against Sri T. Naresh, Joint Sub Registrar-I, as proved,

based on which, the disciplinary authority seems to have imposed a

punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect

PK, J

against him. However, in the case of the petitioner, despite none of

the five charges were proved, the respondents have imposed a major

punishment of dismissal from service, while imposing a lesser

punishment on Sri T. Naresh.

20. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex

Court, in Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1,

categorically held that that parity among co-delinquents needs to be

maintained when punishment is being imposed. The punishment

should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of

co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. It

was also held that the disciplinary authority cannot impose

punishment which is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for

serious offences and harsher punishment for lighter ones or

discriminatory punishment for similarly situated persons. The

relevant observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is extracted

hereunder:

"12. We are of the view that the principle laid down in the abovementioned judgments would also apply to the facts of the present case. We have already indicated that the action of the disciplinary authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment on the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment on the appellant cannot be permitted in

1 (2013) 3 SCC 73

PK, J

law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. The appellant is, therefore, to be reinstated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was reinstated and be given all consequential benefits as were given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs."

21. Further, as none of the charges against the petitioner were

proved, this Court finds no justifiable basis for the decision of the

disciplinary authority to impose such an extreme penalty of dismissal

from service.

22. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems it

appropriate to set aside the impugned punishment order dated

11.01.2024

23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the

impugned dismissal order vide proceedings No.E1/SV/2712/2015

dated 11.01.2024 issued by respondent No.4 and the matter is

remanded back to the disciplinary authority, with a direction to

impose a lesser punishment than that was imposed on Sri T. Naresh,