Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 620 (TS)

N. Lal v. State of Telangana

2024-08-30

PULLA KARTHIK

body2024
ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to Memo No.1126219/53/DTA/VC/2021, dated 25.05.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent i.e. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Finance Department, State of Telangana and quash the same was arbitrary, illegal and without proper appreciation of facts and record and consequently set aside the Memo No. 1126219/53/DTA/ VC/2021, dated 25.05.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent in confirming the proceedings of removal No.G3/2230/2017 dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Telangana at Hyderabad and pass…” 2. Heard Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after demise of the petitioner’s father on 10.06.2009, he was appointed as a Junior Accountant on compassionate grounds on 28.10.2010. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Senior Accountant on 01.09.2013. While so, he got married to one Smt. Neelima @ Sunitha in 2013. However, due to differences, they mutually agreed for divorce, which was granted by the Family Court, Secunderabad vide order dated 08.11.2014 in F.C.O.P.No.230 of 2014. However, two years after the divorce, his former wife filed a criminal case against the petitioner under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and other sections, which was registered as Crime No.281 of 2016. As a result of the complaint, the petitioner was sent to judicial remand on 28.09.2016, and subsequently, respondent No.3 placed him under suspension w.e.f., 29.09.2016 vide proceedings dated 05.10.2016. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued a charge memo vide proceedings No.A1/4647/2016 dated 14.02.2018, for which, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 16.03.2018 denying the said charges. However, without considering the same, respondent No.3 appointed an enquiry officer vide proceedings dated 21.05.2018. Thereafter, the enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and submitted his enquiry report on 08.08.2018 holding the charges II and III as not proved and gave certain findings regarding charge I. However, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings in respect of the charge that was regarding the proceedings in PRC.No.20 of 2017 in Crime No.281 of 2016, which was already quashed by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2020 in Crl.P.No.5312 of 2020. 4. 4. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner on 18.07.2022 to submit his representation over the findings of the enquiry officer as well as on the disagreement of the disciplinary authority with regard to charge I. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his representation on 08.08.2022. Further, the findings and observations of the disciplinary authority with regard to charge III are misconceived and beyond the scope of notice dated 18.07.2022, wherein, there was no mention of disagreement by the disciplinary authority over the findings of the enquiry officer on charge No.3. However, without considering the true facts of the case, the disciplinary authority has issued proceedings dated 18.08.2022 imposing a punishment of Censure, and consequently, the suspension period from 29.09.2016 to 05.09.2017 was treated as not on duty, in terms of FR 54-B (7). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 17.10.2022, but the same was rejected without assigning any reasons, vide Memo No.1126219/53/DTA/VC/2021 dated 25.05.2023. 5. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 committed a serious irregularity in holding that the regular enquiry was concluded holding the charges as proved. However, the same is perverse as the Enquiry Officer, vide enquiry report dated 08.08.2018, has categorically held that all the three charges against the petitioner are not proved. Further, respondent No.2 committed another serious irregularity by holding that there are no new grounds in the appeal, whereas, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the period of suspension may be treated as on duty after adjusting the available leaves of the petitioner. However, without considering the same, respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services submits that respondent No.4 has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, and framed three charges against him vide charge memo dated 14.02.2018, in relation to bigamy, misconduct and delay in attending before the Tribal Welfare Department for verification of his caste certificate. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed who conducted an enquiry, and on 08.08.2018, submitted his enquiry report holding that charges 2 and 3 are not proven. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed who conducted an enquiry, and on 08.08.2018, submitted his enquiry report holding that charges 2 and 3 are not proven. Following the receipt of enquiry report, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed on the petitioner a punishment of Censure after providing him a reasonable opportunity. The same was also confirmed by the appellate authority in proceedings dated 25.05.2023. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s involvement in a criminal case is apparent because the said criminal case was closed due to a compromise between both the parties but not on merits. Thus, the petitioner violated Rule 3 of the Telangana State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and since Charge 1 was held proved, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed a minor punishment of Censure and the period of suspension from 29.09.2016 to 03.09.2017 was treated as not on duty in terms of FR 54-B(7). Therefore, there are no merits in the present writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records. 8. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner was married to one Smt. Neelima @ Sunitha in the year 2013, but due to marital issues, they obtained divorce by way of mutual consent before the Family Court, Secunderabad, vide order dated 08.11.2014 in F.C.O.P.No.230 of 2014. Despite the divorce being granted by the competent court, his former wife Smt. Neelima filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.281 of 2016 after two years of their separation. In this regard, the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f., 29.09.2016 vide proceedings dated 05.10.2016 and was later reinstated into service on 06.09.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 14.02.2018, framing the following charges: “ARTICLE-I: That the said Sri N. Lal, Senior Accountant while working in District Treasury Office, Ranga Reddy District has been accused for involvement in a criminal offence and has voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently the individual has been placed under suspension w.e.f 29.09.2016. Subsequently the individual has been placed under suspension w.e.f 29.09.2016. A charge sheet vide PRC No. 20/2017 has been filed against the charged officer. Thereby, the charged officer has exhibited misconduct and acted in an unbecoming manner and thus contravened Rule 3 of TS Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE-II: That the said Sri N. Lal, Senior Accountant while working in District Treasury Office, Ranga Reddy District has been accused for involvement in bigamy and demanding dowry and has voluntarily confessed to have committed the offense and was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently the individual has been placed under suspension w.e.f 29.09.2016. A charge sheet vide PRC No. 20/2017 has been filed against the charged officer. Thereby, the charged officer has involved in bigamy and demanded dowry and thus contravened Rule 25 & 25(A) of TS Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. CHARGE-III: That the said Sri N. Lal, Senior Accountant while working in District Treasury Office, Ranga Reddy District has filed to adhere to instructions of the Joint Director, District Treasury Office, Ranga Reddy District issued vide Memo.No. A1/589/2014, dt: 23.12.2015 to attend the enquiry on ST status at the O/o the Director, TCR&TI, Hyderabad Thereby, the charged officer has exhibited disobedience, carelessness and thus contravened Rule 3 of TS Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 9. In response to the above charge memo, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 16.03.2018. However, after being dissatisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority ordered an enquiry and appointed enquiry office on 21.05.2018. Thereafter, the enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and submitted his report on 08.08.2018, holding that the charges II and III leveled against the petitioner were not proven. However, respondent No.3 disagreed with the findings of the enquiry office regarding charge I and issued a Memo dated 18.07.2022, stating that this Court had quashed the proceedings in PRC No.20 of 2017 vide common order dated 10.11.2020 in Crl.P.No.5312 of 2020, only in view of the compromise entered into by the petitioner and his former wife, but not on the basis of merits, and that the same demonstrated the petitioner’s misconduct as stated in charge I. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 08.08.2022 requesting to drop the further proceedings. However, without taking the same into account, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of Censure on the petitioner, deviating from the disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer with regard to Charge No.1, and making observations regarding Charge No.3, which were never included in the Memo dated 18.07.2022. Therefore, it can be inferred that the disciplinary authority went on beyond the scope of the Memo dated 18.07.2022 and imposed the punishment of Censure contrary to law and factual position. Additionally, the observation of the disciplinary authority in the impugned punishment order with regard to charge III is deemed to be incorrect and misguided, since there is no mention of disagreement with the finding of the enquiry officer on the said charge, in the earlier notice dated 18.07.2022. 10. The record further discloses that the petitioner's former wife filed a criminal case against him under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and other sections vide Crime No.281 of 2016, which served as the foundation for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. Furthermore, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 28.09.2016, and a charge sheet was subsequently filed vide PRC No.20 of 2017. Admittedly, this Court has quashed the aforementioned criminal proceedings vide common order dated 10.11.2020 in Crl.P.No.5312 of 2020. In the light of quashing of the criminal proceedings that constituted the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings, this Court is of the view that the action of the respondents in continuing with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, culminating in imposition of the punishment of Censure, is highly unjustifiable and untenable. 11. In view of the above made discussion, this Court deems it fit and proper to set aside the impugned punishment order in proceedings No.G3/2230/2017 dated 18.08.2022 issued by respondent No.3, and the subsequent ratification order issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 vide Memo.No.1126219/53/DTA/VC2021 dated 25.05.2023, and they are hereby set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.