The Board Of Directors And Appellate ... vs P Balakistaiah
2025 Latest Caselaw 6252 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 6252 Tel
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2025

Telangana High Court

The Board Of Directors And Appellate ... vs P Balakistaiah on 3 November, 2025

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                         AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

                WRIT APPEAL No.1083 of 2025


JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned

counsel for the appellants and Mr. M. Surender Rao,

learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Srinivasa Rao

Madiraju, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellants - Telangana Grameena Bank are

aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2025

passed in W.P.No.18413 of 2019, whereby the

impugned order of punishment dated 27.09.2018, the

appellate order dated 07.03.2018 and the review order

dated 09.07.2019 have been set aside.

3. The learned writ Court has held that the

respondent/writ petitioner shall be entitled to all

consequential service and monetary benefits including

restoration of pay and seniority, which should be ::2::

extended to him within eight weeks. The learned writ

Court has, while doing so, taken into consideration

that the respondent was denied opportunity of cross-

examination and also held that the show cause notice

dated 25.07.2017 was a predetermined exercise

disclosing the mind of the disciplinary authority as to

the punishment sought to be imposed. The learned

writ Court also invoked the doctrine of proportionality

while setting aside the impugned orders.

4. During the course of submissions though

arguments had been addressed on the tenability of the

aforesaid grounds for setting aside the impugned

orders of punishment, learned Senior Counsel for the

respondent submits that while the other grounds may

not be pressed on behalf of the respondent, the

infirmity in the show cause notice dated 25.07.2017

cannot be supported by the appellants as the

disciplinary authority has, at the stage of show cause ::3::

notice and submission of enquiry report, revealed its

mind as to the penalty proposed to be imposed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if

the learned writ Court was satisfied that the impugned

proceedings suffer from procedural irregularity or the

infirmity in the show cause notice, the mater ought to

have been remanded to the disciplinary authority to

pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Instead,

the entire proceedings have been set aside though the

charges were proved.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid limited facts and

circumstances, without getting into the details of the

nature of the charge or the findings of the enquiry

officer, we are of the view that the matter deserves to

be remanded to the disciplinary authority to pass a

fresh order from the stage of issuance of show cause

notice with the copy of the enquiry report. The show

cause notice dated 25.07.2017 extracted hereunder ::4::

explicitly discloses a predetermined set of mind of the

disciplinary authority to the punishment sought to be

imposed upon the respondent even before his reply or

comments on the findings of the enquiry officer were

submitted:

"Lr. No.Gr.XII/2017-18/3829 Date: 25.07.2017

Sri Balakistaiah, (ID No.423), Regd.Post/Ack due Officer, MMGS-III, CONFIDENTIAL H.No.10-1-92/3-11-B, Janaki Enclave, Lingoji Guda, Saroornagar, HYDERABAD - 500 035.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS-SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

Please refer to our Letter No.Gr.VII/2016-17/2289 dated 27.06.2016, advising the decision to conduct the enquiry into the charges alleged against you and communicated to you vide Charge sheet Lr.No.Gr.VII/2016-17/629 dated 30.04.2016. Sri A. Shankar Goud, Officer SMGS-IV/Chief Manager, T.G.B., Seetharampalli Branch (Presently working as Chief Manager, Accounts, T.G.B., H.O., Hyderabad) was appointed as inquiring authority to hold regular enquiry proceedings against the CSO, vide H.O.Lr.No.Gr.VII/2016-17/2290 dated 27.06.2016, to conduct the enquiry and submit his report.

2. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiring Authority (IA) has submitted his report dated 13.06.2017 and a copy of the same is enclosed. I hereby propose to impose on you the punishment of "Reduction of basic pay by (3) stages i.e., from Rs.54,410/- to Rs.50,030/- in the scale for a period of three years as per the pay structure of the Bank. You will not earn any increments to your pay and not eligible for promotion during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponement of your future increments. These reduced increments will be earned by you on expiry ::5::

of three years period from the date of my order at the rate of one per year".

3. You are hereby, advised to submit your representation, if any, thereon within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter.

4. Please note that, in case we do not receive any submissions before the above stipulated time, it will be deemed that you have no submissions to make and a suitable decision will be taken in the matter.

5. Please return the duplicate copy of this letter duly acknowledged by you with date.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY/CHAIRMAN"

7. The requirement of issuance of a show cause

notice upon submission of the enquiry report upon the

delinquent in a case where the disciplinary authority

and enquiry officer are two different persons has been

specified in the case of Managing Director, ECIL,

Hyderabad and others vs. B. Karunakar and others 1.

8. The purpose is to enable the delinquent to submit

his comments on the findings of the enquiry officer so

that the disciplinary authority, who is of separate

(1993) 4 SCC 727 ::6::

entity, can take an informed decision on the penalty to

be proposed on the basis of the enquiry report and the

reply furnished by the delinquent.

9. In the instant case, the show cause notice apart

from providing copy of the enquiry report inviting

comments of the delinquent officer has fully disclosed

his mind about the proposed punishment which

cannot be sustained. If the proceedings suffer from

this infirmity, the right course is to remit the matter to

the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh show cause

notice and pass order on the penalty to be imposed

upon the respondent on consideration of his reply. In

this regard, reference is made to the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.P. State

Electricity Board Limited vs. Mahesh Dahiya2 where

reliance has also been placed upon the constitutional

Bench judgment in Managing Director, ECIL,

Hyderabad (supra).