[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
P.John vs The District Collector on 13 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.1050 OF 2019
DATED : 13.04.2026
Between:
P. John, Ex-Panchayat Secretary
... Petitioner
AND
The District Collector, Panchayat Wing,
Ranga Reddy Dist., Lakdikapool and
3 others.
... Respondents
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the
4th respondent in Government Memo No.1259/Vig.II/A-2/2013
dt.30.05.2017 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement
into service as Panchayat Secretary on acquittal from the criminal case
in C.C.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge for
W.P. No.1050 of 2019
ACB Cases, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the
impugned Memo and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the
petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary on contract basis on
02.03.2003. Subsequently, a notification dt.06.05.2003 was issued by
the District Collector to fill up 1916 vacancies of Panchayat Secretaries.
Subsequently, the petitioner was accused of accepting a bribe and a
Criminal Case was booked and on the said ground, the petitioner's
services have been terminated. The petitioner has contested the Criminal
case in C.C.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge
for ACB Cases, Hyderabad and he has been acquitted of all the charges
vide judgment dt.08.11.2016. The petitioner, thereafter, requested for
reinstatement into service, but the same has been rejected by the 4th
respondent vide Memo dt.30.05.2017 quoting G.O.Ms.No.148, PR&RD
Department, dt.16.05.2003, on the ground that the petitioner was
appointed as a Panchayat Secretary on contract basis and that his
services have not been regularised at the time of his termination from
service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments
made in the writ affidavit, submitted that the petitioner was appointed in
the year 2003 and was terminated in the year 2012, whereas the services
of all of his batch mates were regularised in the year 2014. He submitted
that the case of the petitioner should have been reconsidered for
reinstatement and regularisation thereafter on acquittal from the criminal
case, but without any application of mind and solely by citing
G.O.Ms.No.148 dt.16.05.2003, the case of the petitioner has been
rejected. He placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of
this Court in the case of V.Raghavulu Vs. Government of Telangana
rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Hyderabad
and others 1 for the proposition that when the delinquent was acquitted
in criminal case on the same set of facts, departmental punishment
cannot be sustained. He submitted that in the light of the above
judgment, the respondents should be directed to reconsider the case of
the petitioner in the light of his acquittal from the criminal case.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II, on the other hand,
supported the impugned order. She submitted that in G.O.Ms.No.148,
Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Mdl.II) Department,
2025 (5) ALT (NRC) 53 (D.B.)
dt.06.05.2003, there was a condition that service of a Panchayat
Secretary has to be satisfactory and is liable to be terminated if it was
found to be unsatisfactory. It is submitted that pursuant to the said
condition, the petitioner's services have been terminated on being
charged with the allegation of receiving and accepting a bribe. She
further referred to the judgment of the Criminal Court in C.C.No.6 of
2013 to submit that the petitioner has been acquitted on benefit of doubt
and not on merits. Therefore, according to her, the claim of the
petitioner has been rightly rejected.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that one of the reasons given by respondent No.4 for
rejecting the case of the petitioner is that his services were not
regularised at the time of termination of his services. The case of
regularisation of the petitioner's services would arise only when he has
rendered sufficient number of years of service and the services of his
batch mates were regularised in the year 2014, i.e., subsequent to his
termination. Further, the very basis on which his services were
terminated, i.e., on accepting a bribe, has been set aside by the Criminal
Court in C.C.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge
for ACB Cases, Hyderabad by also observing that there was a
possibility that the petitioner was falsely implicated. As held by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of V.Raghavulu Vs.
Government of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Home, Hyderabad and others (1 supra), when the
Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner on the very same set of facts
on the basis of which the department has taken action against the
petitioner, the termination cannot be sustained. The 4th respondent has
failed to give any plausible reasons for not accepting the claim of the
petitioner.
6. In view thereof, the impugned Memo dt.30.05.2017 is set aside
and the 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner
in the light of the judgment dt.08.11.2016 in C.C.No.6 of 2013 on the
file of the I Additional Special Judge for ACB Cases, Hyderabad and
also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
V.Raghavulu Vs. Government of Telangana rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Department of Home, Hyderabad and others (1 supra)
and to pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to mention that the petitioner
shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing, if required.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 13.04.2026
Svv
