Telangana High Court
Md Rafiuddin vs State Of Tg,Prl.Scy,Revenue,Hyd,And 2 on 25 June, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 9037 OF 2017
O R D E R:
Petitioner, who claims to be a former Village
Revenue Officer, set forth his case in the affidavit stating that
the 3rd respondent - District Collector issued proceedings dated
28-11-2014 placing him under suspension, which, according to
petitioner, was based on an incorrect allegation that he had
issued fake pattadar pass books and title deeds to certain
individuals concerning lands situated in Survey No. 189,
Naganpally Village. These alleged actions were purportedly for
the purpose of entering names in the pahanis for 2010-11
without necessary orders from higher authorities. Petitioner
states that he had previously challenged this suspension order
and non-completion of disciplinary proceedings before the A.P.
Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings
were formally initiated against petitioner vide proceedings dated
21-01-2015 of the 3rd respondent. It is stated, statement of
imputations in the charge memo was merely a repetition of the
allegations contained in the suspension order. He emphasizes
the absence of any foundational basis for the charge or an
explanation from the disciplinary authority as to how it arrived
at such a conclusion. Furthermore, petitioner points out that
the alleged beneficiaries were not cited as witnesses, thereby
undermining the evidentiary value of the allegations. In
response to the charge memo, petitioner is stated to have
submitted a detailed explanation, unequivocally denying the
charge. He stated that records were indeed altered and the
names of eleven out of fourteen persons mentioned in the
charge memo were changed based on memos issued by the
Tahsildar on various dates, with supporting references.
Petitioner explicitly disowned any connection to entries
concerning Sri Abdulla Anjaiah of Ibrahimpatnam Village and
Avirnen Venkata Rao noting that the latter did not exist in
Naganpally Village revenue records. Regarding Perala Hanmanth
Rao, petitioner clarified that his name had been recorded since
2003-04 onwards, indicating it was not a new or illegal entry in
2010-11. He reiterated that all entries were made based on
Tahsildar's memos and that he never issued pattadar passbooks
or title deeds as he lacked the authority to do so. He further
explained that the then Panchayat Secretaries made entries as
per the Tahsildar's directions, as V.R.O. powers were vested in
them at that time. He also detailed his service as V.R.O.
Polkampally Village and its hamlets, Naganpally, Engalaguda,
and Naganpally from 08-02-2007 until 06-07-2012, when he
was transferred to Dandumailaram Village. Petitioner contends
that the 3rd respondent, without proper examination of his
explanation or objective satisfaction, mechanically appointed an
Enquiry Officer. During the enquiry, the officer vide Letter dated
05-03-2016, requested information from the Tahsildar,
including the genuineness of a Memo to the Panchayat
Secretary, Nagampally Village dated 29-09-2006 and signatures
on Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds. Petitioner argues that
this indicates his non-involvement, particularly as the VRO
system was not in vogue prior to 11-01-2007. He further alleges
gross violation of natural justice, as this information was
collected behind his back, denying him the opportunity to
examine the Tahsildar or review the information.
It is stated, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings
dated 08-12-2016, issued show cause notice proposing
dismissal, which, petitioner believes, demonstrates
predetermination. He claims the enquiry report dated
23-08-2016 deviated completely from Rule 20 of the APCS
(CC&A) Rules, 1991. The Enquiry Officer, without providing
reasons, concluded petitioner's involvement in the fraud.
Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the show cause
notice on 15-12-2016 highlighting defects in the Enquiry
Report. Despite this, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated
18-02-2017, imposed dismissal.
2. The 3rd respondent, in the capacity of District
Collector, Rangareddy, filed counter affidavit asserting validity
and propriety of disciplinary action taken against petitioner. It is
stated that the genesis of the matter lies in complaints received
regarding procurement of fake Pattadar Pass Books and Title
Deeds by villagers of Naganpally Village. The Tahsildar,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal initiated inquiry, issuing notices to
those individuals alleged to have obtained these questionable
documents directing them to submit the said Pattadar Pass
Books and Title Deeds for verification. Despite, none of the
individuals submitted their Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds
for verification. This led the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam to
conduct a local inquiry, which revealed that villagers had indeed
obtained these fake Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds with
the assistance of petitioner concerning lands in Survey No. 189
of Naganpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy
District. A detailed report was subsequently submitted by the
Tahsildar to the then Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue
Divisional Officer, Saroornager Division.
The Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue
Divisional Officer, Saroornager Division, through reference in
November 2014, reported to the 3rd respondent that petitioner
entered the names of the aforementioned persons in the pahani
for the year 2010-11 without obtaining any orders from higher
authorities. These illegal entries, respondent contends, led to
issuance of fake Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds, which
were then used by the holders to obtain loans from banks.
Consequently, petitioner was placed under suspension under
Rule 8 of the Telangana Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1991, as
adopted by the Government of Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.190,
dated 27-05-2016 to initiate departmental proceedings vide
Proceedings dated 28-11-2014.
It is stated that as petitioner's explanation was
found to be unsatisfactory, the Enquiry Officer was appointed
who, after conducting inquiry, submitted report dated
23-08-2016 concluding that charges against petitioner were
proved beyond any doubt. The report specifically stated that
'delinquent officer did not submit any cogent reason in support
of his denial with regard to issue fake PPBs and TDs in respect
of Naganpally Village, said to have been issued by the
delinquent officer'. Based on Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam
Mandal's reports dated 18-08-2016 and 19-08-2016, along with
copies of Inward Register, Pattadar Pass Books, assignment
certificates, and memos to the Panchayat Secretary of
Naganpally Village, it was evident that none of the persons listed
were in possession of the respective lands. The Tahsildar's
report and records demonstrated that corrections were made in
I.B. Register and that signatures of the then M.R.O. had been
forged on assignment certificates, Pattadar Pass Books and
memos. The Enquiry Officer also noted that entries in the
Inward Register did not tally with the file numbers on the
assignment certificates, I.B. Register and memos. Consequently,
all documents produced by petitioner were deemed not genuine
and forged. The Enquiry Officer opined that such fraud would
not be possible without the involvement of the delinquent
officer, thereby proving the petitioner's involvement.
The 3rd respondent after careful examination of
petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice highlighted that the
irregular behavior in creating fake PPBs and TDs without
obtaining the orders of the Competent Authority is objectionable
and inconsistent with the duties of a responsible government
servant. Therefore, a major punishment was deemed
appropriate for the corrupt and mischievous act. In exercise of
powers under Rule 9(x) of the Telangana Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1991, as adopted by the Government of
Telangana vide G.O.Ms.No.190 dated 27-05-2016, the 3rd
respondent passed the order dismissing petitioner from service
with immediate effect.
This respondent maintains that petitioner was given
ample opportunity to present documents but he failed to submit
satisfactory explanation. The incongruence between the
numbers on the petitioner's submitted assignment certificates
and memos with the Inward Register is cited as proof that these
documents were fake and created. It is pointed out that
petitioner's reliance on memos from 2006 for entries in 2010 (a
four-year lapse) is impermissible, especially given that the
memos themselves were found to be not genuine. It is the VRO's
duty to prepare Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds based on
genuine entries concluding that petitioner's involvement in
issuing fake documents is proved beyond doubt, justifying his
dismissal. Respondent acknowledges petitioner's admission of
changing records for eleven out of fourteen persons based on
memos. However, the memo numbers did not tally with the
Enquiry Officer's report, proving them to be bogus documents
used for fraudulent entries in 2010 pahani. This respondent
asserts that petitioner created illegal rights over the lands and
was involved in issuing fake Pattadar Pass Books and Title
Deeds. He confirms petitioner's appointment as V.R.O.
Polkampally Village and hamlets vide Proceedings dated
08-02-2007 and his tenure until 06-07-2012, confirming that
the illegal entries in 2010-11 pahani occurred during his
service. The respondent denies the need to consult petitioner for
obtaining information from the Tahsildar. It is contended that
petitioner is not entitled to relief and Writ Petition is not
maintainable.
3. Petitioner filed reply to the counter stating that
during pendency of this Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent vide
proceedings dated 13-04-2018 dismissed the Appeal preferred
against the orders of the 3rd respondent dated 18-02-2017.
Therefore, he filed I.A. No. 1 of 2018 seeking permission to
amend the main prayer in the Writ Petition and the said
Application was subsequently, ordered. It is stated, petitioner
was aggrieved by the respondents' action of not reviewing his
suspension in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 86 dated
08-03-1994. Consequently, he filed O.A. No. 3088 of 2015.
Additionally, he filed O.A. No. 2212 of 2016 challenging non-
completion of enquiry as per G.O.Ms.No. 679 dated 01-11-2008
and seeking reinstatement into service. The Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal (APAT) vide common order dated
16-06-2016, disposed both the cases observing that time limit
mentioned in G.O.Ms.No. 679 dated 01-11-2008 is merely
advisory and not mandatory for completion of enquiry.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri D. Linga Rao
submits that the Enquiry Officer's findings exceed the scope of
the charge by introducing an allegation of forgery of the then
MRO's signature, an allegation absent from the original charge.
He selectively appreciated the evidence on record and
discharged the evidence which is in favour of his client, contrary
to the well-settled legal principles that there cannot be selective
appreciation of the evidence in the matters concerning
disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel questions that if
petitioner is part of the conspiracy, why the authorities have not
conducted common enquiry against all the individuals who are
involved in conspiracy. The Enquiry Officer failed to provide
supporting reasons as mandated by Rule 20 of the APCS
(CC&A) Rules, 1991, he merely expressed an opinion of
involvement without specific evidence.
Learned counsel relied on the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh 1, Sher Bahadur v. Union of India 2 and Life
Insurance Corporaitn of India v. Triveni Sharan Mishra 3.
5. Reiterating the averments in the counter,
Ms. B. Annapurna, learned Assistant Government Pleader
representing learned Government Pleader for Services-I made
her submissions.
6. Having carefully considered the pleadings of both
the parties, it is evident that petitioner's primary challenge
revolves around the alleged arbitrary nature of dismissal order,
perversity of the enquiry findings and purported violations of
principles of natural justice and statutory rules, specifically
Rules 20 and Rule 21 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Conversely, the
respondent staunchly defends dismissal, presenting a narrative
of established fraud, petitioner's admitted involvement in
altering records and the thoroughness of the disciplinary
process.
7. Petitioner's initial suspension on 28-11-2014 and
subsequent initiation of disciplinary proceedings on 21-01-2015
under the same proceeding number stemmed from allegations of
2024(14) SCALE 1
(2002) 7 SCC 142
(2014) 10 SCC 346
issuing fake pattadar passbooks and title deeds for lands in
Survey No. 189, Naganpally Village, to facilitate illegal entries in
2010-11 pahanis. Petitioner's contention that charge memo
merely repeated the suspension allegations without proper basis
or explanation for the disciplinary authority's conclusion, holds
some initial appeal. However, the respondent's counter affidavit
clarifies that the basis for the charges emerged from a detailed
inquiry conducted by the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,
prompted by complaints of fake documents. This inquiry,
including attempts to verify the documents from the alleged
beneficiaries who failed to produce them, culminated in a report
to the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional
Officer, Saroornagar Division, and subsequently to the 3rd
respondent. This chain of events provides a procedural genesis
for the charges, suggesting they were not merely arbitrary
repetitions.
8. Petitioner's detailed explanation denying the
charges and offering justifications for the entries made,
particularly relying on memos issued by the Tahsildar dated
from 2006 is a crucial part of his defense. He asserts that he
merely acted on directions and lacked power to issue passbooks
or title deeds, claiming that Panchayat Secretaries held such
powers at the relevant time. He also meticulously explained his
non-involvement with specific individuals and prior existence of
an entry for Perala Hanmanth Rao from 2003-04. However,
respondent's counter significantly undermines these assertions.
It is pointed out that the memos relied on by petitioner were
purportedly issued in 2006, yet the entries in the pahani were
made in 2010-11, implying a lapse of approximately four years.
Respondent further states, crucially, that Enquiry Officer, based
on reports from the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal dated
18-08-2016 and 19-08-2016 and a comparison with the Inward
Register, found that numbers on petitioner's submitted memos
did not tally with the relevant numbers in the Inward Register.
This finding, as per the respondent, unequivocally establishes
that the memos relied upon by petitioner were bogus and
fabricated documents, created for the purpose of making
fraudulent entries.
9. Petitioner's allegation of violation of principles of
natural justice, specifically that information was collected
behind his back by the Enquiry Officer vide Letter dated
05-03-2016 and that he was not given an opportunity to
examine the Tahsildar or review the information, warrants
careful scrutiny. While principles of natural justice demand a
fair opportunity to defend oneself, respondent counters this by
stating that there is no requirement to consult petitioner for
obtaining information from the Tahsildar for investigative
purposes. More importantly, it is asserted that the articles of
charges were framed and served on petitioner after obtaining
connected records and reports from the Tahsildar, thereby
providing petitioner an opportunity to respond to the substance
of allegations. The subsequent issuance of Show Cause Notice
also provided another avenue for defense. Respondent's
contention is that petitioner had ample opportunity to defend
his case by filing relevant records, but he failed to submit
genuine records, instead submitted bogus records. This implies
that while information was gathered, petitioner was given
subsequent opportunities to challenge it or present counter-
evidence during the formal stages of the disciplinary
proceedings.
10. The contention of petitioner regarding Enquiry
Officer's findings beyond the scope of the original charge,
particularly introduction of the allegation of forgery of the then
MRO's signature, is concerned, the original charge focused on
the issuance of fake documents and illegal entries. The Enquiry
Officer's conclusion that signatures of the then M.R.O. had been
forged on assignment certificates, Pattadar Pass Books, and
memos, if not explicitly part of the initial charge, could
potentially be seen as an expansion of scope of inquiry.
However, respondent's case implies that forgery was discovered
during examination of documents submitted and relied upon by
petitioner himself, as the Enquiry Officer's report states that
entries in the Inward Register did not tally with the file numbers
and that the documents produced by petitioner are not genuine
and forged documents. While the term 'forgery' might have been
introduced at a later stage of the enquiry, the underlying factual
finding that the documents presented by petitioner were not
genuine and involved fabricated elements directly relates to the
charge of illegal entries and fake documents. Respondent's
argument is that the petitioner's involvement in these
fraudulent activities, irrespective of whether 'forgery' was
explicitly charged initially, was conclusively proved. The Enquiry
Officer concluded that 'in this fraud, it is not possible without
involvement of delinquent officer'. This finding connects
petitioner directly to the fraudulent nature of documents.
11. Regarding petitioner's assertion that the Enquiry
Officer violated Rule 20 of the 1991 Rules is concerned,
respondent's counter affidavit provides a rebuttal, the case of
respondent is that the Enquiry Officer's report explicitly stated
that petitioner did not submit 'any cogent reason in support of
his denial'. Furthermore, the report relies on the Tahsildar's
reports of 18-08-2016 and 19-08-2016, the incongruence of
Inward Register entries with petitioner's documents and the
finding of forged signatures, all of which constitute specific
evidentiary points leading to conclusion of petitioner's
involvement. This suggests that the conclusion was not a mere
opinion but was based on a comparison of records and the
findings of irregularities.
12. The respondent's contention that petitioner
admitted to changing records for eleven out of fourteen persons,
albeit claiming to have done so based on memos, strengthens
their case. When these very memos are subsequently found to
be bogus and their numbers do not tally with official records,
petitioner's defense fails. Respondent emphasizes that these
fraudulent activities led to attempts by farmers to obtain bank
loans using fake documents, highlighting the gravity of the
misconduct.
13. In the light of the above, this Court finds the
reasons provided by respondents for dismissing petitioner from
service to be cogent and supported by the findings of the
inquiry, which pointed out irregularities and fraudulent
practices directly linked to petitioner's actions and the
documents he relied upon. The Writ Petition lacks substance
and is liable to be dismissed.
14. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
15. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
------------ -------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
25th June 2025
ksld
