Telangana High Court

Gunda Kishore Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 16 June, 2025

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

         HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


              WRIT PETITION No.12329 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard Smt. M. Bhagyasree, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 to 3, Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned

Standing Counsel for the service matters of Municipal

Corporation, Ramagundam, appearing on behalf of

respondent No.4 and learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Medical Health and Family Planning, appearing

on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer

as under:

"...to pass a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing the G. O. Rt. No. 58 (MAUD, VIG III) Dept, Dt. 10.02.2023 served through the 5th Respondent herein appending the articles of charges without issuing any Show Cause Notice and without any authority or jurisdiction, and also consequential G. O. Rt. No.128 (MAUD, VIG III Dept, Dt. 18.03.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, irrational and without permissible in law, instead of earlier prayer wherever it occurs in the WP No.

SN, J WP_12329_2023

12329 of 2023 and connected IAs therein in the interest of justice".

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner

had been appointed as Health Assistant in the year 1999 and had

been deputed to work under the control of the 5th respondent

and had been discharging his duties diligently without any

complaint. On 22.02.2015 the petitioner had been sent on

deputation as Sanitary Inspector in the 4th respondent Municipal

Corporation. On 12.01.2021 the petitioner had been transferred

to his parental department i.e. Medical and Health Department

pursuant to the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.317 and posted at

the office of the District Medical and Health Officer, PHC,

Manakoindur. The petitioner received the impugned order

bearing G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 10.02.2023 issued by the 1st

respondent through the 5th respondent, wherein certain charges

were framed against the petitioner alleging that while the

petitioner was functioning as Sanitary Inspector on deputation in

the 4th respondent Corporation, petitioner had submitted fake log

books of sanitary vehicles, fake vehicle maintenance and fake

bills for the fuel and caused financial loss to the Corporation. It

is the specific case of the petitioner that the said allegation

SN, J WP_12329_2023

pertains to the period from August, 2020 to December, 2021 but

the petitioner had taken charge on 22.02.2015 and worked till

August, 2020. The charges framed against the petitioner are far

from truth and without any iota of evidence as no show cause

notice was served on the petitioner prior to issuance of the

impugned G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 10.02.2023, issued by the 1st

respondent through the 2nd respondent to the petitioner herein

and aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the Court by

filing the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

(A) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 to 4, in particular, para Nos.5 and 6, are

extracted hereunder:

"5. It is submitted that 1st respondent issued GO Rt.No.58, MA & UD (Vig.III) Dept., Dated:10.02.2023 framed articles of charges against the petitioner Sri G.Kishore Kumar, the then Sanitary Inspector and directed to submit his written statement of defence within (15) days from the date of receipt of the said G.O. But the petitioner had not submitted any explanation or defence statement against charges framed on him despite receipt of the copy of the G.O. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is being the head of MA & UD Department, after receiving detailed enquiry report from Addl. Collector (LB), Peddapalli on allegations made against

SN, J WP_12329_2023

the petitioner had framed charges against the petitioner and given opportunity to submit his defense statement within 15 days of receipt of the copy.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner without submitting any reply to the G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 10.02.2023 filed the present writ petition questioning the issuance of G.O. as illegal. There are serious allegations raised against the petitioner and the Addl. Collector (LB), IAS enquired and found prima facie evidence to conduct a detailed enquiry and submitted the report for higher officials. The writ petitioner with an intention to avoid the punishment and to escape from the enquiry proceedings filed the above writ petition by misrepresenting the facts."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that the impugned G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 10.02.2023

issued to the petitioner is illegal and is liable to be set aside on

the ground that Articles of Charges had been framed against the

petitioner without issuing prior notice to the petitioner and,

further on the ground that it is falsely alleged that while

petitioner was functioning as Sanitary Inspector on deputation in

Ramagundam Municipal Corporation during the period August

2020 to December 2021 the petitioner had submitted fake log

books of sanitary vehicle and fake bills for the fuel and had

SN, J WP_12329_2023

caused financial loss to Ramagundam Municipal Corporation and

further on the ground that the delay in issuing the impugned

charge Memo G.O.Rt.No.58 dated 10.02.2023 in the year 2023

when the alleged irregularities pertain to the period August 2020

to December, 2021 remained unjustified and unexplained by the

respondents 1 and 2 herein and hence, the impugned

proceedings G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 10.02.2023 needs to be set

aside and the petitioner's case needs to be considered for

promotion.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader on the other

hand draws attention of this Court to the impugned proceedings

G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 10.02.2023, particularly para No.3 and

contends that in spite of specific direction to the petitioner to

submit the written statement of defence within 15 days from the

date of the said proceedings G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 10.02.2023,

the petitioner had not responded as on date and further the

learned Assistant Government Pleader placing reliance on para

No.10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st

respondent contends that an Inquiry Officer had also been

appointed, however, Enquiry report is awaited and the same is

being delayed since petitioner is not cooperating with the Enquiry

SN, J WP_12329_2023

proceedings to avoid punishment. The learned Assistant

Government Pleader further submits that the writ petition could

be disposed of by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conclude

the enquiry initiated against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.58,

dated 10.02.2023 issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent

through the 2nd respondent.

6. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the Government

issued G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 21.12.2024 appointing one Sri

A.Maruthi Prasad, Municipal Commissioner, Mancherial

Municipality as Enquiry Officer to conduct inquiry into the

Charges framed against the petitioner and also the Manager,

Ramagundam Municipal Corporation as Presenting Officer to

present the case before the Enquiry Officer on behalf of the

disciplinary Authority. This Court opines that in view of the

specific plea put forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the petitioner that promotions are likely to take place soon

and the petitioner's case for promotion to the next cadre cannot

be ignored due to the allegations levelled against the petitioner

in the year 2023, with no enquiry having commenced even as on

date, this Court opines that petitioner should furnish petitioner's

written statement of defence in response to G.O.Rt.No.58 dated

SN, J WP_12329_2023

10.02.2023 issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent

through the 2nd respondent and cooperate with the enquiry so as

to enable conclusion of the enquiry by passing of appropriate

orders by the Disciplinary Authority in accordance to Law within

a reasonable period and in the meantime petitioner's case for

promotion to the next cadre as per seniority should be

considered for promotion without reference to the disciplinary

proceedings.

7. Division Bench of this Court i.e., High Court of

Andhra Pradesh as it then was, in the case of K.Sai Ram v

State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2017 SCC Online

Hyderabad 549 vide its Judgment dated 07.09.2017 held

that a "person cannot be penalized by keeping disciplinary

proceedings pending for unduly long periods and in the

said case the promotion to the petitioner therein was

directed to be considered, with a clear observation that

same however shall be subject to outcome of the

disciplinary proceedings.

Similar view was taken by this Court vide its

Judgment dated 31.07.2018 passed in W.P.No.21306 of

2018.

SN, J WP_12329_2023

Hence, this Court opines that petitioner is entitled

for grant of relief of consideration of petitioner's case for

promotion without reference to G.O.Rt.No.58 dated

10.02.2023 issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent

through the 2nd respondent.

8. Taking into consideration :

(a) The facts and circumstances of the case,

(b) The submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned

Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and

the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I,

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3,

(c) This Court opines that promotion is not a

fundamental right but Right to be considered for

promotion however is a fundamental Right, since such a

right brings within its purview an effective, purposeful

and meaningful consideration.

(d) The fact borne on record that G.O.Rt.No.58

dated 10.02.2023, issued to the petitioner by the 1st

respondent through the 2nd respondent pertains to the

alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner during

SN, J WP_12329_2023

the period August 2020 to December, 2021 and the same

indicates malafides on the part of 1st respondent and

hence it is but necessary to put an end to the enquiry.

(e) The Division Bench Judgment of this Court

reported in 2017 SCC Online Hyderabad 549,

(f) The Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.21306 of

2018,

The writ petition is disposed of directing the

petitioner to submit the written statement of petitioner's

defence to G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 10.02.2023 issued to the

petitioner by the 1st respondent through the 2nd

respondent herein, within a period of one (1) week from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order by putting forth

all the objections/pleas pertaining to the issuance of the

said G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 10.02.2023 issued to the

petitioner by the 1st respondent through the 2nd

respondent and the 1st respondent shall duly consider the

same and initiate appropriate action and issue appropriate

directions to all concerned to conclude the enquiry

initiated against the petitioner vide impugned

G.O.Rt.No.58 dated 10.02.2023 of the 1st respondent

SN, J WP_12329_2023

through the 2nd respondent within a period of four (04)

weeks thereafter in accordance to Law, in conformity with

principles of natural justice and pass appropriate orders

thereon.