[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
S. Ramana vs The State Of Telangana on 13 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.9992 of 2023
DATE:13.04.2026
Between:
S.Ramana
....Petitioner
1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal
Secretary, Home Department and three others
...Respondents
ORDER:
1. The writ petition is filed questioning the
Proc.RC.No.02/A6/MPR/2022 (DO.No.720/2022), dated
09.11.2022 issued by the respondent No.4 imposing
punishment of postponement of Increment for one year
without cumulative effect and the consequential orders
issued by the respondent No.3 in
Rc.No.A6/APP/31/2023 (ROO No.15/2023), dated
18.04.2023 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner was
rejected.
SK,J
2. Heard Sri N.Ramesh, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Smt.A.Satyasree, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Home (Services) appearing for
the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the respondent No.4 initiated disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner by framing Articles of Charge vide
Memo C.No.02/A6/MPR/2022 dated 25.05.2022 under
Rule 22 of the TGCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for brevity ' the
Rules, 1991) on the allegation that he threatened his
stepmother to give divorce to his father. The petitioner's
stepmother also filed a criminal case against the
petitioner and his brother vide FIR No.22/2022 under
Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 IPC on the file of
the Women Police Station, Adilabad, and the same is
pending before the competent Criminal Court.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that in response to the notice issued by the
SK,J
respondents, the petitioner submitted his explanation on
30.05.2022, stating that when they questioned their
stepmother for not taking proper care of their father, who
had fallen ill due to paralysis, she lodged a false
complaint against them. However, the respondent No.4,
without considering the explanation submitted by the
petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, passed
orders imposing the punishment of postponement of one
increment for a period of one year without cumulative
effect vide Proc. RC No.A6/MPR/2022, DO No.720/2022
dated 09.11.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, which came
to be dismissed on 18.04.2023 without considering
explanation of the petitioner and said orders are
impugned in the instant writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the respondent No.4 imposed the punishment without
following the prescribed procedure under Rule-20 and 22
of Rules, 1991 and the respondent No.3 rejected the
SK,J
appeal mechanically without considering the appeal filed
by the petitioner and requested to allow the allow the
writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support
of his contentions placed reliance on the following
Judgment:
1 State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Prakash
Singh 1
7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, basing
on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.4,
submits that the Inspector of Police, Women Police
Station, Adilabad, vide Letter No.59/WPS-Add/2022
dated 09.03.2022, informed the respondent No.4 about
the involvement of the petitioner in Crime No.22/2022
registered for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506
read with 34 IPC. Basing on the said report, the
Assistant Commandant conducted a preliminary enquiry
2025 SCC OnLine SC 891
SK,J
by recording the statements of relevant witnesses and
submitted the report on 10.05.2022. In the said report, it
was revealed that the petitioner had harassed his
stepmother, Smt. Jayasheela, demanded over phone to
give divorce to his father and forcibly obtained her
signature on an agreement prepared by him. In view of
the prima facie evidence regarding the petitioner's
misconduct, a Charge Memo was issued under Rule 22 of
the Rules, 1991. In response thereto, the petitioner
submitted his explanation on 30.05.2022 and upon
consideration of the memorandum of charges, the
explanation submitted by the petitioner and the material
on record, the respondent No.4 imposed the punishment
of postponement of one increment for a period of one
year without cumulative effect on future increments. The
respondent No.3, upon due consideration, rightly
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and there are
no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned orders
and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
SK,J
8. After hearing both sides and perusing the record,
this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is
a Police Constable and the respondent authorities have
issued Articles of Charge under Rule 22 of the Rules,
1991 and after considering the explanation submitted by
the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 imposed the minor
punishment of postponement of increment without
cumulative effect for one year in Proc.RC No.
02/A6/MPR/2022 (DO No. 720/2022), dated 09.11.2022
and the same was confirmed by respondent No. 3 in RC
No. A6/App/31/2023 (ROO No. 15/2023), dated
18.04.2023.
9. The main contention of the petitioner is that the
respondents/disciplinary authority without following the
Rule 22 of the TGCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 imposed
impugned punishment merely basing on the preliminary
inquiry report, without conducting the enquiry as
contemplated under Sub-rules 3 to 18 of Rule-20 as
mentioned in Rule 22 (b) of the Rules, 1991.
SK,J
10. Admittedly, the punishment was imposed on the
ground that the petitioner and his brother harassed their
stepmother and basing on her complaint a criminal case
was registered. The record clearly shows that the
petitioner submitted his explanation to the Articles of
Charge. Thereafter, only basing on the preliminary
inquiry report, without conducting any enquiry, without
giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without
issuing any show-cause notice informing the petitioner
about the finding of the enquiry as required under Rule
22 (a) of the Rules, 1991, the disciplinary authority
straightaway imposed punishment and the appellate
authority also confirmed the same which is contrary to
Rule 22 of the Rules, 1991. In view of the same, the
impugned order passed by the respondent No.4 and the
consequential order of respondent No.3 are liable to be
set aside and remand the matter for following the
procedure as contemplated under the Rules, 1991.
SK,J
11. With the above findings, the writ petition is
disposed of by setting aside the Proc. RC
No.02/A6/MPR/2022 (DO No. 720/2022), dated
09.11.2022 issued by respondent No. 4 and the
consequential orders in RC No. A6/App/31/2023 (ROO
No. 15/2023), dated 18.04.2023 issued by the
respondent No.3 and the matter is remanded back to the
respondent authorities for conducting inquiry from the
stage of appointment of the Enquiry Officer as per Rule-
22 of the Rule, 1991. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this
Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date:13.04.2026
trr
