Telangana High Court
Mohd Mahboob Hussain vs The State Of Telangana on 27 November, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.46939 OF 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declare the impugned Charge Memo dated
26-2-2018 issued by the 2nd respondent in Tribunal
Enquiry Case No.719 of 2013 served to the petitioner,
on 7-4-2018, for the incident related to year of 2011,
as illegal arbitrary, and in violation of Rule 9(2)(b)(ii)
of A.P/TS. Revised Pension Rules 1980, and contrary
to the judgment of this Hon'ble High Court Common
judgment passed in W.P.No.25587 of 2018 and Batch
dated 15-11-2018, accordingly quash the same and
consequently direct 1st respondent to pay 12%
interest on the delayed payments of retirement
benefits to the petitioner, and pass such other order
or orders as may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota, learned counsel
for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Labour,
appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner, who was working as Assistant Labour Officer, Nakrekal,
Nalgonda District, was issued a charge memo on 26.02.2018 for the
incident pertaining to the year 2011. He further submits that in
similar circumstances, this Court allowed W.P.No.23108 of 2021 on
20.10.2023 by relying on the common order passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.25587, 26311 and 26381 of 2018, dated 15.11.2018 and
also by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P.
v. Shri Krishna Pandey 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that:
"while dealing with initiation of a departmental
enquiry against the respondent therein after his
retirement from service, observed that as in Rule
9(2) (b) (ii) of the Rules of 1980, Regulations 351-A
of the Civil Services Regulations, which was
under consideration, provided that departmental
proceedings, if not instituted before retirement, shall
not be instituted in respect of an event which took
place more than four years before such institution, as
in Rule 9 (6) of the Rules of 1980, the Explanation to
Regulations 351-A provided that departmental
proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted
when the charges framed against the pensioner were
issued to him or from the date of his being placed
under suspension, if applicable. Ultimately the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that departmental
proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four
years from the date on which the event of
misconduct had taken place."
(1996) 9SCC 395
4. Admittedly, the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is
squarely covered by the order dated 20.10.2023 in W.P.No.23108
2021.
5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, quashing the charge
memo dated 26.02.2018 issued against the petitioner. There shall
be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this
Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
Date: 27.11.2025
HFM
