Telangana High Court
The Disciplinary Authority And ... vs Endapalli Mahendar on 22 July, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
I.A.No.2 of 2025
in/and
W.A.No.780 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Singh)
Mr. K.Sridhar, learned counsel representing Mr. P.Sri
Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni
Collieries Co. Ltd. appearing for the appellants.
Mr. P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the
respondent appeared through video conferencing.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order
dated 03.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.5692 of 2021 by the
learned writ Court whereby the learned writ Court
dismissed the writ petition inter alia holding as under:
"5. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities to the learned
counsel for the respondents, no counter affidavit has been filed
and on going through the order of this Court in W.P.No.24756 of
2019 and the relevant paragraphs referred to above, this Court
finds that there was no liberty given to the authorities for
restoring or continuing the proceedings against the petitioner. In
the case of "Kulwanth Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab" [1991
Supp (1) SCC 504], it was held that the punishment of stoppage
of increments cannot be imposed without conducting a detailed
enquiry and therefore, this Court has held that the punishment
imposed on the petitioner is contrary to law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kulwanth Singh Gill Case" (supra)
and accordingly had set aside the punishment orders as well as
appellate orders. No liberty was granted by the Court and
therefore, the respondents could not have restored or continued
the departmental proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to
the charge memo dated 08.10.2014.
6. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the
proceedings dated 30.01.2021 and also dated 09.02.2021 and
26.02.2021 are of contrary to the judgment rendered by this
Court dated 29.09.2020 in W.P.No.24756 of 2019 and therefore
cannot be restored and continued.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs."
3. The imposition of penalty of withholding of two
increments once again after the order dated 29.09.2020
passed in W.P.No.24576 of 2019 was set aside but the writ
petition was dismissed. The official respondents are in
appeal. The appeal suffers from a delay of 355 days. It is
pertinent to mention here that in the earlier proceeding,
the punishment was set aside but no liberty was granted to
the respondents to continue or restore the departmental
proceedings. The learned writ Court therefore interfered in
the fresh order of penalty passed for the same charges. The
order dated 29.09.2020 passed in W.P.No.24576 of 2019
was not made subject matter of challenge any time before.
The appellants have, on this occasion also, sat over the
matter and preferred the appeal after a delay of 355 days.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellants on the
delay condonation application and also after going through
the impugned order, we do not find any reason to condone
the delay.
4. Accordingly, the delay condonation petition is
dismissed. Consequently, Writ Appeal is also dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 22.07.2025
KL
