[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Dr.R.Venkata Kumar vs Dr.Jyotindra Kumar Singh on 9 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.393 of 2026
Dated: 09.04.2026
Between:
Dr. R.Venkata Kumar
...Appellant
and
Dr. Jyotindra Kumar Singh
and 3 others.
...Respondents
JUDGMENT:
Learned counsel Sri R.V.Subba Rao appears for the appellant.
Learned counsel Sri J.Sudheer appears for respondent No.1.
Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached
to the office of learned Additional Advocate General, appears for
respondent No.2.
Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel - cum -
Special Public Prosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), appears
for respondents No.3 and 4.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This writ appeal arises out of the judgment dated 26.03.2026
allowing W.P.No.2988 of 2018 filed by respondent No.1 herein,
wherein the appellant was arrayed as respondent No.4.
4. The appellant lodged FIR No.846 of 2014 against respondent
No.1 (writ petitioner). Another FIR No.7 of 2015 was registered by the
ACB, City Range-1, Hyderabad, on the complaint lodged by Deputy
Superintendent of Police, ACB, City Range-1, Hyderabad, which
contained allegations against the appellant. After completion of
investigation in Cr.No.7/ACB-CR1/2015, before filing charge sheet, the
ACB sought sanction for prosecution from the Government. The
Government issued Memo No.3093/VC/1/2-16-1, dated 17.03.2017,
whereby it decided to entrust the case against the appellant to the
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for regular enquiry into the
allegations. This was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.40085 of
2018. The learned writ court by judgment dated 28.12.2018 quashed the
said Memo on the ground that the appellant was not a Government
servant as defined under Section 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960, who can be
proceeded by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. It was also
observed that there was no prima facie material on the basis of which,
the Government could have referred the allegations levelled against the
appellant to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings on 17.03.2017.
The impugned order also suffered from non-application of mind. It was
accordingly set aside. The appellant had instituted FIR No.846 of 2014
against respondent No.1 alleging that the appellant was being targeted
on false allegations by making deposit of certain amounts by respondent
No.1 tainted as bribe in the salary account of the appellant. That FIR
has been closed after investigation as per the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant. Respondent No.1 approached the learned writ
court by filing W.P.No.2988 of 2018 with the following prayer:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is humbly
prayed that this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice, may be
pleased to
a) set aside the proceedings in Memo No.3093/VC/1/2016-l dated
17-3-2017 issued by the Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC) Department
b) and consequently direct the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities to
undertake the investigation and to take the matter to its logical
conclusion before the competent court
c) by issuance of Writ of Mandamus
d) and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case."
5. The learned writ court, after recording the submissions of the
parties and the facts placed, held as under:
"10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that Memo No.3093/VC/1/2016 dated 17.03.2017 is
vitiated by non application of mind, insofar as it pertains to the issue of
grant of sanction for prosecution, and is inconsistent with the statutory
scheme and settled legal principles.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Memo
No.3093/VC/1/2016 dated 17.03.2017 issued by the Special Chief
Secretary to Government, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (VC)
Department is hereby set aside, insofar as it relates to non consideration
of the requisition for grant of sanction for prosecution. It is clarified that
the departmental proceedings as per the impugned memo, being distinct
in nature, may continue independently, in accordance with law. The
question of grant of sanction for prosecution shall be reconsidered
afresh by the competent authority, based on the report dated 02.04.2016
submitted by the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, strictly in
accordance with law.
12. Having regard to the fact that the matter has been pending since the
year 2016, the competent authority is directed to take an appropriate
decision expeditiously, preferably within a period of six (6) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
6. The appellant, being aggrieved, has preferred this appeal.
7. During the course of submissions, one more fact has come to the
notice of this court that after passing of the judgment in W.P.No.40085
of 2018, the matter relating to sanction of prosecution of the appellant in
the said case was placed before the appellant's employer, Nizam's
Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS), since the learned writ court had
held that the appellant was not a Government servant.
8. Learned Standing Counsel - cum - Special Public Prosecutor for
ACB has placed the letter in Rc.No.HR1/178/2021/F, dated 25.10.2023,
addressed to the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Telangana
State, Hyderabad, by the Director of NIMS, whereby NIMS decided to
initiate departmental action under Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter
referred to as, "the Rules of 1991"). Apparently, the sanction of
prosecution has not been granted. The refusal to sanction prosecution
by NIMS is not the subject matter of the present proceedings.
9. Upon consideration of rival submissions of the parties and the
material facts taken note above, it is clear that the instant writ petition
seeks to challenge the Memo dated 17.03.2017 which were already set
aside at the behest of the appellant in W.P.No.40085 of 2018.
Respondent No.1 has sought consequential direction to the ACB to
undertake investigation and take the matter to its logical conclusion.
Since the challenge to the Memo dated 17.03.2017 had succeeded and
the judgment has become final, there cannot be any fresh challenge to
the said Memo dated 17.03.2017 in the instant writ petition. Therefore,
the consequential direction sought upon the ACB to undertake the
investigation and take the matter to its logical conclusion would also not
arise in the present writ petition. As observed hereinabove, much water
has flown since the issuance of the Memo dated 17.03.2017 and its
quashing and the request for sanction of prosecution of the appellant to
his employer - NIMS, being declined. The NIMS has taken a decision
to initiate departmental proceedings against the appellant under the
Rules of 1991. Those are not the subject matter of the present
proceedings.
10. As such, we are of the considered view that the impugned
judgment on a cause of action which had already become final by virtue
of the decision of the learned writ court in W.P.No.40085 of 2018, could
not have been adjudicated twice at the behest of respondent No.1.
11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgment is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
09.04.2026
vs
