Telangana High Court
T. Venkateshwarlu vs The State Of Telangana on 10 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION NO.28266 OF 2024
ORDER:
Seeking to declare that G.O.Rt.No.191, M.A. (E2), dated
18.02.2003 and Memo No.10396/Vig.III (1)/2002, dated
13.09.2023 of respondent No.1 are illegal, arbitrary and vitiated on
account of inordinate delay in conclusion of the proceedings and
set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to
take steps to release due service pension and other retiral benefits
from the date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2003 along with permissible
rate of interest immediately, the present Writ Petition is filed.
2) Heard Sri K.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for
respondents 1 and 2, and Sri Murali Krishna, learned Standing
Counsel, appearing for respondent No.3.
3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has joined in the
then Andhra Pradesh Secretarial Service as LDC in January, 1968.
Later, he was promoted as an Assistant Section Officer in 1975,
further promoted as Section Officer in 1990. Further, as provided
under Rule I, he was considered and deputed to work as MRO in
West Godavari District for a period of three years from 1993 to
1995. Subsequently, he was appointed by transfer as Municipal
Commissioner in the year 1995 and thereafter promoted as Special
Grade Commissioner in the year 1997 and further promoted as
Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner in the year 1999.
Further, while working as Municipal Commissioner, LB Nagar
Municipality, Hyderabad, he retired from service in June, 2003, on
attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the
petitioner is that though he retired in the year 2003, still he is
being paid provisional pension only on account of tendency of
departmental proceedings inspite of the fact that he worked as
Municipal Commissioner, Nizamabad, for a very short period of
three months in the year 2000. Hence, the petitioner is before this
Court.
4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the
petitioner was working as Municipal Commissioner at L.B.Nagar
Municipality, respondent No.1 has issued impugned order vide
G.O.Rt.No.191, dated 18.02.2003, framing three charges, which
are not specific and distinct in nature. As such, they are violative
of TS CS (CCA) Rules, 1991. Further, the said charges are relating
to inaction in taking steps to raise the demands in collection of
advertising tax, failure to supervise the Town Planning officials in
advertisement boards erected and failure in maintenance of proper
records of advertisement boards. To the said charges, petitioner
has submitted his detailed statement of defence denying the
charges and explaining valid reasons thereof. Subsequently,
during the course of enquiry, he also submitted further statement
of defence along with a copy of G.O.Ms.No.549, dated 30.11.2001
which prescribes the duties and responsibilities of various officials
working in Municipalities. However, without considering the same,
a common enquiry was ordered vide G.O.Rt.No.645 dated
05.05.2008 against nine Charged Officers, including the petitioner
herein. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer i.e. Commissioner of
Inquiries conducted enquiry and submitted a common enquiry
report on 30.10.2009 i.e. after a lapse of more than 6 ½ years from
issuance of charge memo dated 18.02.2003. Further, after a lapse
of 15 years, the present impugned show cause notice vide Memo
No.10396/Vig.III (1)/2002, dated 13.09.2023, has been issued by
respondent No.1 indicating the decision already taken to impose
the penalty, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation
on 25.09.2023 narrating all the lapses on the part of the
respondents in concluding the departmental enquiry and further
stating that though he was not the Commissioner of Nizamabad
Municipality for the financial year 2000-2001, yet, the authorities
have framed the charges against the petitioner for the said period,
which is bad in law and therefore requested to drop the
proceedings and release the denied pension and retirement gratuity
and encashment of Earned Leave. Thus, the learned counsel
contends that in view of the settled law, the very charge memo
initiating departmental proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.191, dated
18.02.2003, as well as the show cause are liable to be set aside on
account of inordinate delay in conclusion of departmental
proceedings.
5) Learned counsel further submits that the Enquiry Officer
held that the charges are proved against Charged Officers 1 to 7 in
general way and the charges are directly proved against Charged
Officers 8 and 10 since they had the primary responsibility of
attending to the particular item of work on which the charges have
been based. Further, in respect of the Charged Officer No.8
against whom the charges are directly proved holding that he is
primarily responsible, respondent No.1 has dropped the charges
vide G.O.Rt.No.1842, dated 27.12.2008. Petitioner herein is
Charged Officer No.6. Therefore, the action of the respondents in
proposing to impose punishment upon the petitioner is arbitrary
and discriminatory in nature. Hence, the learned counsel prays to
allow the writ petition.
6) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submits that
based on the recommendation of the General Administration (V&E)
Department and advice of the Advisory Bodies, the Government
has initiated disciplinary proceedings and issued Article of Charge
against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.191, MA & UD (E2) Dept.,
dated 18.02.2002, for which, the petitioner has submitted his
written Statement of Defence on 28.03.2003 and after examining
the same, the Government has appointed an Enquiry Officer to
conduct enquiry on the charges framed against the petitioner.
After conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted
the Enquiry Report to the Government vide D.O.Lr.No.608/COI-
CL/A2/2008, dated 31.10.2009 holding that the charges against
the petitioner, the then Municipal Commissioner, are proved.
Further, the Enquiry Report was communicated to the petitioner in
terms of Rule 21 (2) of Telangana Civil Services (Classification,
Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, vide Government Memo dated
08.02.2010 calling for his explanation on the Enquiry Officer's
findings. Thereafter, the Government after careful examination of
matter in consultation with Advisory Body, provisionally decided to
impose the punishment of cut in pension equivalent to withholding
of 2 increments without cumulative effect besides recovery of an
amount of Rs.1.99 lakhs from the petitioner. Further, after getting
advice from the Advisory Body, the Government has decided to
impose the penalty of 8% cut in pension for a period of 2 years and
issued Show cause Notice to the petitioner calling for his
explanation vide Memo dated 13.09.2023. In pursuance thereof,
the petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 25.09.2023.
Learned Government Pleader further submits that in view of
discharge of both Enquiry Officers for different reasons, report on
calculation for change of punishment from Annual Grade
Increment into pension percent took time and the same caused
delay in concluding the punishment in the present case.
Therefore, the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned
show cause notice and prays to dismiss the writ petition.
7) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by
respective counsel and perused the material on record.
8) Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation in June, 2003 whereas the
impugned charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.191 was issued on
18.02.2003 i.e. just four months prior to the date of his retirement,
framing the following three charges:
"Charge No.1: That he had not taken any steps to raise the
demand in collection of Advertisement Tax.
Charge No.2: That he had failed to supervise the Town
Planning Officials to identify the advertisement boards erected in the
Municipality and to collect the tax on it.
Charge No.3: That he had failed to see that proper records with
regards to advertisement boards are maintained by the staff."
9) Here it is pertinent to refer Rule 20 sub-rule (3) of CCA Rules,
which reads as under:
"Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government
Servant under this Rule and Rule 21, the Disciplinary Authority
or the Controlling Authority who is not designated as Disciplinary
Authority and who is subordinate to the Appointing Authority can
draw up or cause to be drawn up-
(i) The substance of the imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge.
(ii) A statement of the imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall
contain-
(a) A statement of all relevant facts including any
admission or confession made by the Government Servant.
(b) A list of documents by which and a list of witness
by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.
10) A plain reading of the charges framed against the petitioner,
stated supra, clearly reveals that the charges are vague in nature
and are contrary to Rule 20 (3) of CCA Rules.
11) Further, though the Charge Memo was issued in the year
2003, the respondents took their own time i.e. more than six years
for concluding the common enquiry against petitioner and 9 other
Charged Officers. Finally, on 30.10.2009, the Enquiry Officer has
submitted the enquiry report holding as under:
"In the light of the above discussions, I come to the conclusion
that the charges of lack of supervision against C.Os.1 to 7 are
proved in a general way though degree of individual responsibility
will be at variance. The charges against C.O.8 and C.O.10 are
directly proved because they had the primary responsibility of
attending to the particular item of work on which the charges
have been based."
Petitioner herein is Charged Officer No.6 and therefore the charges
proved against the petitioner were in a general way. Further, in
respect of one D.Ramesh Babu, Charged Officer No.10, against
whom the charges were proved directly, the Government has
dropped further action vide G.O.Rt.No.1842, MA & UD (E2)
Department, dated 27.12.2008. The case of the petitioner stands
on a better footing than that of Charged Officer No.10 since the
charges were held proved against the petitioner in a general way.
Relevant observations of the Enquiry Officer made in the Enquiry
Report are reproduced hereunder for better adjudication of the
matter:
"In view of the submissions made above with facts and figures
and in view of the observations of the Government fixing
accountability and responsibility over the Town Planning Officer
and Town Planning Subordinates in regard to detection and
assessment of advertisement tax and in view of the steps taken by
him in supervising this aspect in the review meetings conducted
regularly and issue of instructions from time to time to plug
leakages of revenue under tax and non-tax resources. It is not
justifiable to make him responsible for the short period of his
stay of 3 to 4 months in Nizamabad Municipality. He denied
the three charges framed against him and therefore requested to
drop further action."
(emphasis added)
12) Therefore, this Court is of the view that the action of the
respondents in exonerating the Charged Officer No.10, against
whom the charges were directly proved, while proposing to impose
punishment upon the petitioner-Charged Officer No.6, against
whom the charges were proved only in a general way, amounts to
discriminatory in nature.
13) That apart, the respondents have taken 20 years of time from
the date of issuance of charge memo till issuance of present
impugned show cause notice indicating to impose penalty upon the
petitioner.
14) In P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing
Board 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that allowing the
respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at
this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant.
Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and
1 (2005) 6 SCC 636
disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and
distress to the official concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry
against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not
only in the interests of the government employee but in public
interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds
of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw
the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had
already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary
proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of
the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would
be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by
the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary
proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
15) Similarly, in State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan 2, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the essence of the matter is that the
court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to
balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean
and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should
be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is
2 (1998) 4 SCC 154
abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent
employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are
concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental
agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily
prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings.
In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary
proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its
complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay
is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on
the fact of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary
authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee It
is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer
entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly,
efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this
path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary
proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant
rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the
charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the
delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting
the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance
these two diverse conditions.
16) Further, in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence v.
Prabash Chandra Mirdha 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the delay in initiating or concluding enquiry proceedings
causes prejudice to the delinquent; as such the same is also a
ground for quashing the charge itself.
17) Admittedly, in the present case, the charge memo was issued
in February, 2003, the Enquiry Report was submitted on
31.10.2009 and the impugned show cause notice proposing to
impose the penalty was issued in September, 2023. Thus, the
respondents took their own time of two decades i.e. 20 years to
conclude the departmental proceedings. Therefore, in view of the
law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments
referred to above, this Court is of the view that the charge sheet
itself is liable to be set aside on the ground of delay.
(2012) 11 SCC 565
18) For the afore-mentioned reasons, the charge memo vide
G.O.Rt.No.191, dated 18.02.2003 and Memo dated 13.09.2023
issued by respondent No.1 are liable to be set aside.
19) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, the charge memo
vide G.O.Rt.No.191, M.A. (E2), dated 18.02.2003 and Memo
No.10396/Vig.III (1)/2002, dated 13.09.2023 issued by respondent
No.1 are set aside and the respondents are directed to release due
service pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner from
the date of his retirement, as expeditiously as possible, preferably,
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition
shall stand closed. No costs.
____________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date : 10-09-2025
sur
Issue C.C. by 15.09.2025.
