Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Y. Srinivas Rao on 9 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.1440 of 2024
JUDGMENT:
Sri B.Krishna, learned Government Pleader for
Services (Home), appears for the appellants.
Learned counsel Dr. D.V.Rao appears for the
respondent through video conferencing.
2. The penalty of dismissal from service by order dated
09.09.2014 upon conviction of the respondent by the
appellate court under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC), with a sentence of three years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine with default sentence invoking
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India in terms of Rule
25 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as, "the
Rules"), has been set aside by the learned writ court by
order dated 02.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.17695 of 2021
filed by the respondent, which is under challenge by the
aggrieved appellants.
3. Rule 25 of the Rules reads as under:
"Rule 25. Special procedure in certain cases:-
Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 20 to Rule 24--
(i) where penalty is imposed on a Government servant
on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on
a criminal charge, or
(ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for
reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not
reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner
provided in these rules, or
(iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest
of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any
inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules,
the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances
of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit:
Provided that the Commission shall be consulted,
where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are
made in any case under this rule.
Provided further that no such consultation with the
Commission is necessary before any orders are made under
clause (i) of this rule."
4. Rule 25(i) of the Rules permits the disciplinary
authority to impose a penalty on the ground of conduct
which has led to conviction on a criminal charge. Instead
of imposing the penalty under Rule 25(i) of the Rules, the
disciplinary authority proceeded to impose the penalty
under Rule 25(ii) of the Rules invoking Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India, which was rightly interfered with by
the learned writ court. However, the employer i.e., the
appellants have the liberty to pass a fresh order on the
ground of conviction of the respondent in a criminal case
under Section 498A of IPC by the appellate court in
accordance with law after giving the respondent an
opportunity to show cause.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal is
disposed of without interfering in the impugned order.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
09.09.2025
vs
