Telangana High Court
Sri Banoth Karna vs The Singareni Collieries Company ... on 15 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.355 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for
the appellant, Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri K.Thirumala Rao, learned counsel for
respondent No.4 and perused the record.
2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the dated 30.12.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.25550 of 2021.
The said Writ Petition was disposed of along with W.P.No.23141
of 2021 whereby the learned Single Judge
i) allowed W.P.No.25550 of 2021 filed by respondent No.4
herein and has set aside the orders granting notional
promotions to the appellant in regard to the post of
Manager (Forestry) Grade-VI w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and also in
regard to the post of Deputy General Manager, Grade-VII
w.e.f. 01.05.2021. The appellant herein, who is
respondent No.4 in W.P.No.25550 of 2021 challenges the
directions issued by the learned Single Judge particularly
in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the said order dated
30.12.2024 which directs the official respondents to
modify the punishment imposed upon the appellant and
to reconsider the case of the appellant for promotion after
the modification of the punishment order and
ii) dismissed W.P.No.23141 of 2021 filed by the appellant
herein inter alia challenging the action of respondent
No.1-Singareni Collieries Company Limited, in not
considering and disposing the representation dated
04.08.2021 made by the appellant herein for promotion to
the post of Deputy General Manager (Forestry) in E-VII
Grade w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and consequently to direct
respondent No.1-Company to consider the case of the
appellant for promotion to the post of Deputy General
Manager (Forestry) in E-VII Grade w.e.f. 01.04.2020.
3. The case of the appellant herein/respondent No.4 in Writ
Petition No.25550 of 2021 was that he was appointed on
16.06.2001 as Junior Manager in E-I Grade, he was promoted
to E-II Grade on 07.10.2004 as Forest Officer, he was further
promoted to E-III Grade on 01.11.2007 as Senior Forest Officer,
E-IV Grade on 01.04.2011 and E-V on 01.04.2014 as Deputy
Manager and he became eligible to Manager (Forestry) E-VI
Grade w.e.f. 01.04.2017, but due to pending disciplinary
proceedings, his promotion was kept in a sealed cover.
4. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
appellant herein concluded with a 'warning letter' dated
29.07.2019. Subsequently, the sealed cover was opened and
the appellant herein was promoted to the post of Manager
(Forestry) in E-VI Grade notionally w.e.f. 27.11.2018 by office
order on 06.08.2019 and allowing the monetary benefits from
06.08.2019.
5. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent Company in not
promoting the appellant herein w.e.f. the date of his eligibility
i.e., 01.04.2017, the appellant approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.20233 of 2020. However, during the pendency of
W.P.No.20233 of 2020, the appellant was issued with office
order dated 08.12.2020 modifying the office order dated
06.08.2019 and informing the appellant that the date of
promotion in the pay scale of Rs.90,000-Rs.2,40,000 (E-VI
Grade) may be read as 01.04.2017 (Notional) instead of
27.11.2018. The appellant was promoted as Deputy General
Manager (Forestry) in E-VII Grade by office order dated
23.07.2021 w.e.f. 01.05.2021 allowing monetary benefit w.e.f.
14.07.2021.
6. Aggrieved by the promotion of the appellant herein to
Grade-VI w.e.f. 01.04.2017 (by office order) and promoting the
appellant to Grade-VII w.e.f. 01.05.2021 (by office order dated),
respondent No.4 herein filed W.P.No.25550 of 2021 challenging
the notional promotion of the appellant w.e.f. 01.04.2017.
7. The appellant made a representation dated 04.08.2021 to
the respondents contending that he became eligible for
promotion to E-VII Grade w.e.f. 01.04.2020 by restoration of
notional seniority from 01.04.2017 and requested for
consideration for promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2020. The appellant
filed W.P.No.23141 of 2021 challenging the action of the
respondents in not considering his representation dated
04.08.2021 for promotion to the post of DGM (Forestry) in E-VII
Grade w.e.f. 01.04.2020.
8. The learned Single Judge as noted above by common
order dated 30.12.2024 dismissed W.P.No.23141 of 2021 filed
by the appellant and allowed W.P.No.25550 of 2021 filed by
respondent No.4 wherein it was held that the warning letter
dated 29.07.2019 issued to the appellant herein was not in
accordance with Rule 14.11 of Executive Promotion Rules,
which mandate that atleast a penalty of 'censure' for partially
proved charges. Further, the learned Single Judge also has set
aside the appellant's promotion order and directed the
respondents to modify the punishment awarded to the appellant
to 'censure' based on the Executive Promotion Rules and
thereafter directed to consider the appellant's promotion.
Submissions of the appellant:
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contends
that:
i) the learned Single Judge erred in applying Executive
Promotion Rules to disciplinary proceedings which are
governed by SCCL Executive Conduct, Discipline and
Appeal Rules, 2021 (for short, 'CD&A Rules').
ii) though a warning is not a prescribed penalty under the
CD&A Rules, it is an administrative action and the
Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to issue a
warning without invoking formal penalties.
iii) respondent No.4, being a third party, has no locus
standi to challenge the penalty awarded to the appellant.
iv) the direction of the learned Single Judge to modify the
punishment and to reconsider the promotion after
modification of the punishment effectively directs the
respondent-Company to impose a formal penalty, however
the Disciplinary Authority has chosen to caution the
appellant by issuing a 'warning', which is beyond the
scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contends
that the penalties are governed by the SCCL Executive Conduct,
Discipline and Appeal Rules which operate in different areas
and the learned Single Judge erred in directing the modification
of the punishment based on the Executive Promotion Rules.
Learned Senior Counsel also contends that the learned
Single Judge exceeded the bounds of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has further
contended that the power to impose punishment lies with the
disciplinary authority.
Learned Senior Counsel also found fault with the finding
of the learned Single Judge that respondent No.4 herein being
an affected party should ought to have been given a notice
before the modification of appellant's promotion order and also
contended that the same is without any legal basis. Further,
the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant asserted that once
a 'sealed cover' promotion decision is finalised after disciplinary
proceedings, the benefit of the promotion can be extended even
without providing notice to other employees.
Submissions on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3:
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-Company contended that:
i) as per the recommendations of the Departmental
Promotion Committee (for short, 'DPC') the appellant
therein has been promoted to Manager (Forestry) in E-
VI Grade w.e.f. 01.04.2017.
ii) the appellant was issued a warning letter dated
31.07.2019 and that the imposition of penalties to a
delinquent is in the discretion of the Disciplinary
Authority of the respondent-Company.
iii) after the completion of the disciplinary proceedings,
the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on
12.12.2016 by following sealed cover procedure as
recommended for the promotion of the appellant herein
to E-VI Grade. Subsequently, on the completion of
three years in E-VI Grade, the appellant was promoted
to E-VII Grade w.e.f. 01.05.2021.
iv) there was no deviation of any Rule by the respondent
Company and the Departmental Promotion Committee
guidelines were strictly followed.
v) right from the date of appointment, respondent No.4
herein was junior to the appellant.
vi) the allegation of respondent No.4 that the respondent
Company unduly favoured the appellant is baseless
and incorrect.
Submissions of respondent No.4:
11. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 supported the
order of the learned Single Judge and contended that
i) the disciplinary authority is bound by the Rules
governing disciplinary matters and cannot
impose the penalty of 'warning' which is not
prescribed by the CD&A Rules.
ii) that in the warning letter dated 29.07.2019 at
para Nos.4 and 5 held as follows:
"04. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report
giving findings that the articles of charges levelled
against you under Clause No.5(9) read with 4.1 of
CD&A Rules of the Company are proved.
05. Though the misconduct committed by you, in
fact, warrants imposition of penalty under CD&A
Rules, after careful consideration the Enquiry
Proceeding, Enquiry Report, your representation
against enquiry report and evidence on record, a
lenient view has been taken for this time and you
are hereby WARNED to be meticulous at your
duties in future."
And as per Note 3 (iii) which reads:
"(iii) Caution/Warning/Recordable Warning
issued to the employee without issuance of any
Chargesheet/Memorandum. However, in the
past, if caution/warning/recordable warning is
issued as a result of proven/established charges,
it shall be treated as equivalent to "Censure"".
The warning being on account of 'established charges'
should be treated as equivalent to 'censure'.
iii) That Rule 14.0 of the Executive Promotion Rules
(for short, 'EPR') deals with Procedure in respect
of Executives facing disciplinary proceedings and
Rule 14.4 of the EPR specifically provides that
the delinquent who must be 'completely
exonerated' for the sealed cover procedure to be
given effect. However, in the present case, the
disciplinary authority took a lenient view and
issued a warning even though the charges were
held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, which
itself disentitle the appellant from coming into
the zone of consideration for promotion.
12. Now the points that arise for consideration in this writ
appeal are:
1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority can issue a
'warning' though not enlisted in the list of
prescribed penalties?
2. Which of the Rules would apply to matters of
departmental proceedings in the event of these
being two sets of Rules in existence like in the
present case, as:
a) EPR
b) CD&A
3. What would be the nature of warning and whether
it would constitute a punishment?
4. Whether 'warning' in the facts of the case would
amount to 'exoneration' of the charges and can it
remove the impediment for promotion of the
appellant to Grade-VI and Grade-VII?
5. Whether respondent No.4 herein has the locus
standi to challenge the punishment awarded to the
appellant?
6. What is the scope of judicial review in disciplinary
matters and whether the Writ Court could direct the
modification/alteration of the punishment imposed
on the appellant?
Point Nos.1 and 3:
13. It is pertinent to note that 'warning' is not considered as
formal penalty under the Classification, Conduct and Appeal
Rules and is distinct from 'censure' which is a formal
punishment. Further, the warnings are issued as an
administrative device, for cautioning the employee for toning up
efficiency in the case of minor lapses.
14. On perusal of the CD&A Rule No.28.1 which enumerates
specific penalties, wherein a 'warning' is not listed among them,
as a warning issued is an administrative measure and not a
formal penalty and the disciplinary authority has the discretion
to issue a warning, based on the facts and circumstances of a
given case.
Point No.2:
15. It is to be noted that the CD&A and EPR Rules operate in
distinct domains wherein, the CD&A governs disciplinary
proceedings and penalties while EPR Rules regulates
promotions. Rule 14.11 of EPR Rules which prescribes a
minimum penalty of 'censure' for partially proved charges, is
intended to guide promotion committees and not to override the
powers of disciplinary authority under CD&A.
16. Further, under the Service Law, there is a distinction
between promotion and disciplinary proceedings. While
disciplinary proceedings can affect an employee's promotion, the
Rules governing each process are distinct.
Point No.4:
17. In respect of the question that whether 'warning' would
amount to exoneration of charges, it is to be noted that as per
P.Ramanatha Aiyar "The Law Lexicon", the word 'exoneration' is
defined as 'the removal of a burden, charge, responsibility, or
duty'. In the present case, the disciplinary authority in exercise
of its administrative action has chosen to issue a warning. The
disciplinary authority has the exclusive discretion to amend,
including the penalty not prescribed under enlisted penalties.
Such a conscious and deliberate act on the account of the
disciplinary authority can only be treated as exoneration of the
appellant herein from the charge.
18. Thus, the appellant having been exonerated by passing
comment about the charges being proved with the enquiry
report assume no significance and become redundant.
Point No.5:
19. It is also pertinent to note that a third party employee i.e.
respondent No.4 herein has no right to challenge the penalty
imposed unless it directly violates his legal or a Constitutional
Right.
Point No.6:
20. The scope of judicial review in matters concerning
disciplinary actions is limited as it restricts the process and
adherence of the applicable law including Rules and the
compliance of principles of natural justice. In the present case,
the Writ Court erred in directing an employer to impose a
specific penalty or enhance the punishment at the request of a
third party. The direction to modify punishment and to
reconsider promotion (based upon such modified punishment)
encroaches upon the domain of the disciplinary authority.
Therefore, the Writ Court cannot substitute its view for that of
employee in matters of disciplinary proceedings.
21. In view of our findings above, it is observed that the
learned Single Judge erred in directing the respondent Company
and the official respondents to modify the punishment in
accordance with Executive Promotion Rules and reconsider the
case of the appellant for promotion thereafter.
Conclusion:
22. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion
that the learned Single Judge erred in applying the Executive
Promotion Rules to the disciplinary proceedings and in directing
the modification of the punishment imposed on the appellant.
The disciplinary authority acted within its powers under the
CD&A Rules and the promotion granted to the appellant herein
was in accordance with the sealed cover procedure.
23. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the
order dated 30.12.2024 in W.P.No.25550 of 2021. The
promotion orders dated 08.12.2020 and 23.07.2021 in favour of
the appellant are restored. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
__________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
__________________________________
G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 15.09.2025
ssp
