Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1089 (TS)

P. Ravinder Rao v. State of Telangana

2025-09-24

PULLA KARTHIK

body2025
ORDER : PULLA KARTHIK, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “… directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing the impugned GO RT No.424, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Vig-I) Department, dated 29.06.2018 of the first respondent/State Government by setting aside the same holding it to be illegal, arbitrary and invalid with a consequential direction to accord all service benefits to petitioner as if the said impugned order has not been passed …..” 2) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Engineering Services on 08.04.1992. While he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer at MPP, Wardhannapet, Warangal District, a Charge Memo bearing No.387/V.A-1/A1/2001-13, dated 07.08.2002, was communicated to the petitioner through respondent No.2 framing two charges, for which, the petitioner has submitted his defence on 10.11.2003 denying both the charges. However, an enquiry was conducted by the Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj, who submitted the Enquiry Report vide Letter No.BPR-II/2575/2003, dated 17.09.2004, to respondent No.2 holding that both the charges are not proved. Subsequently, respondent No.2 vide letter No.Vig.III (ii)/5970/2001, dated 03.03.2005, while accepting the Enquiry Report, has forwarded the said Enquiry Report to respondent No.1 requesting to drop the charges against the petitioner and other Charged Officers. However, without considering the said Enquiry Report, the Government has referred the matter again to the Commissioner of Enquiry vide G.O.Rt.Nos.1881 and 1882, PR & RD (Vig.) Dept., dated 09.11.2005. Pursuant to the same, a second enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to respondent No.1 vide Memo No.387/Vig.I/2001-48, dated 27.04.2007, holding both the charges against the petitioner are proved. The said enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner asking for his explanation and the petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 04.06.2007 refuting the findings given in the enquiry report. At that stage, questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, while considering his juniors, he filed O.A. No.9094/2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. On 02.12.2008, the Tribunal has issued interim direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, without reference to the charges. Accordingly, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer vide proceedings No.D/33924/ 2008, dated 23.07.2009, and he has been working as such. On 02.12.2008, the Tribunal has issued interim direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, without reference to the charges. Accordingly, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer vide proceedings No.D/33924/ 2008, dated 23.07.2009, and he has been working as such. While so, the Government has issued the impugned G.O. RT.No.424, dated 29.06.2018, imposing the penalty of reversion to the lower rank, upon the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.2 in his letter No.Vig.I(5)/ 5970/01, dated 17.11.2020 and Vig.III(2)/5970/01, 14.06.2022, requested respondent No.1 to issue clarification regarding the words ‘reversion to lower rank’ , to which, clarification was issued vide Memo No.PRRD-VENG/2/8/2020-88, dated 24.01.2024, indicating that the punishment was reversion to lower post of Assistant Executive Engineer, to which post the petitioner was directly recruited. Hence, the present writ petition. 3) This Court on 20.03.2024 while issuing notice before Admission has passed interim orders directing the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner as Deputy Executive Engineer. 4) Heard Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned penalty imposed on the petitioner on the basis of the second enquiry report dated 27.04.2007 brushing aside the first enquiry report dated 17.09.2004 is illegal and liable to be set aside in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.D Pandey , (2002) 10 SCC 471 which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.11607 of 2021 vide order dated 29.03.2022. Learned counsel further contends that the impugned order is issued without assigning any reasons, without verification of records, more particularly explanation of the petitioner, and therefore vitiated for non-application of mind. Further, the action of respondent No.1 in discarding the first enquiry report dated 17.09.2004 and obtaining the second enquiry report dated 27.04.2007 on the same set of charges and the material on record is abuse of process of law and only to punish the petitioner, which is arbitrary, unjust and illegal. Learned counsel further contends that the disciplinary proceedings commenced with issuance of charge memo dated 07.08.2002 and culminated with the order dated 29.06.2018 imposing the punishment of reversion to lower category. Learned counsel further contends that the disciplinary proceedings commenced with issuance of charge memo dated 07.08.2002 and culminated with the order dated 29.06.2018 imposing the punishment of reversion to lower category. On 17.09.2004 the first enquiry report was submitted holding that the charges are not proved whereas the second enquiry report was submitted on 27.04.2007 holding that the charges are proved, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 04.06.2007. However, after a lapse of 11 years, the punishment was imposed on 29.06.2018. Further, though respondent No.2 sought clarification on 17.11.2020 as regards punishment imposed upon the petitioner, respondent No.1 gave clarification on 24.01.2024 i.e. he took three years for giving clarification. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings were unduly and arbitrarily prolonged causing prejudice to the petitioner. Further, the entire disciplinary proceedings starting from issuance of charge memo dated 07.08.2002 ending with clarification dated 24.01.2024, took 22 years for no fault of the petitioner. Hence, the disciplinary proceedings including the penalty imposed on the petitioner are liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on: a) K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong , 1971 (2) SCC 102 b) Kanailal Bera v. Union of India , (2007) 1 SCC 517 c) D.Srinivas v. Government of A.P. , 2013 (4) ALT 1 (D.B.) 6) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submits that basing on the reports of the General Administration Department (Vigilance and Enforcement) dated 08.03.2001 and 24.05.2001, the charge memo dated 07.08.2002 was issued to the petitioner and others on the allegation of irregularities in execution of road work from Sangem to Upparapally in Warangal District. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer gave his report in respect of 4 officers including the petitioner holding that the charges are not proved. Therefore, respondent No.2 has requested the Government to drop the charges framed against the 4 Charged Officers. The Advisory Board, while observing certain things, has advised the Department to cancel the Enquiry Report dated 17.09.2004 treating it as null and void as the Enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Rule 20 of CCA Rules. Therefore, respondent No.2 has requested the Government to drop the charges framed against the 4 Charged Officers. The Advisory Board, while observing certain things, has advised the Department to cancel the Enquiry Report dated 17.09.2004 treating it as null and void as the Enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Rule 20 of CCA Rules. After examining the matter and obtaining orders in Circulation in Government Memo No.387/Vig.I/2001-33, dated 09.03.2005, the Enquiry Report has been cancelled in G.O.Rt.No.1881, 1882, PR & RD (Vig.) Dept., dated 09.11.2005, and the case was entrusted to Commissioner of Enquiries for conducting a regular common inquiry against the five charged officers. After concluding the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 22.09.2006 holding that the charges are proved against all the officers including the petitioner herein and the copy of the report was also communicated to the charged officers asking to submit their representations on the same vide Memo dated 27.04.2007. After examining the matter, a provisional decision was taken to impose the penalty of reversion to the lower rank and recovery of amounts from the petitioner and other charged officers towards loss caused to the Government. The said proposals were sent to TSPSC for their concurrence. Thereafter, the Government has imposed the penalty of reversion to lower rank against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.424 dated 29.06.2018. Learned Government Pleader further submits that after following due procedure, respondent No.2 was clarified that the punishment of reversion to lower rank connotes category i.e. reduction to lower grade or post not being lower than to which he was directly recruited vide Govt. Memo No.PRRD-VENG/2/8/2020-88, dated 24.01.2024. Therefore, the respondents are justified in imposing the punishment of reversion to lower rank upon the petitioner and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 8) As can be seen from the record, admittedly, basing on the Vigilance Report dated 08.03.2001, the charge memo dated 07.08.2002 was issued to the petitioner and four others framing the following two charges: “ Charge-I He prepared bogus estimate and recorded false measurements and prepared bogus bills and caused loss to public exchequer in the road work from Sangem to Upparapally of Warangal District. Charge-II He did not maintained muster rolls as required in the agreement and failed to send progress reports.” In response, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 10.11.2003 denying the charges. However, an enquiry was ordered and the Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 17.09.2004 to respondent No.2 holding that both the charges are not proved. Further, respondent No.2 has forwarded the said Enquiry Report to respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 03.03.2005 and requested to drop the charges. However, it was decided by respondent No.1 to cancel the Enquiry Report dated 17.09.2004 and initiate disciplinary action against petitioner and 4 others vide G.O.Rt.Nos.1881 and 1882, PR & RD (Vig.) Dept., dated 09.11.2005. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry, has submitted his report dated 22.09.2006 holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, on 27.04.2007, an explanation was called for from the petitioner upon the Enquiry Report, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 08.06.2007. However, after a lapse of 11 years the impugned order vide GO Rt.No.424, dated 28.06.2018 is passed imposing the punishment of reversion to the lower rank. Thereafter, vide Memo No.PRRD-VENG/2/8/2020-88, dated 24.01.2024, the punishment of ‘reversion to lower rank’ was clarified as ‘reversion to lower grade or post not being lower than to which the petitioner was directly recruited’. 9) Here, it is pertinent to note that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner were initiated on 07.08.2002 and concluded on 29.06.2018 i.e. after a lapse of 16 years. Further, the respondents took a further time of six years to clarify on the penalty imposed on the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on number of occasions, has deprecated the practice of the authorities in delaying the conclusion of departmental proceedings and held that the respondents cannot take their own time to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. Some of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are mentioned hereunder. 9.1) In P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board , (2005) 6 SCC 636 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the official concerned. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the official concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. 9.2) Similarly, in State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan , (1998) 4 SCC 154 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the fact of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse conditions. 9.3) Further, in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabash Chandra Mirdha , (2012) 11 SCC 565 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the delay in initiating or concluding enquiry proceedings causes prejudice to the delinquent; as such the same is also a ground for quashing the charge itself. 9.4) The said ratio has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.Srinivas (referred supra) . 10) In view of the above referred judgments, this Court is of the considered view that the inordinate delay caused in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the petitioner caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and therefore liable to be set aside. 11) Further, as seen from the record, the first enquiry report dated 17.09.2004 wherein the charges against the petitioner were held to have not been proved was cancelled by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.Nos.1881 and 1882, PR & RD (Vig.) Dept., dated 09.11.2005, duly ordering to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and others, which kind of action of the respondents was opined to be an abuse of process of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as hit by the Rule of Double Jeopardy. Some of the judgments holding the field are detailed hereunder. 11.1) In K.R. Deb (referred supra) , while dealing with Rule 15 (1) of the Classification and Control Rules, it has been held as under: “11) …. If in the opinion of such authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish charges different from those originally framed, it may record findings on such charges provided that findings on such charges shall not be recorded unless the Government servant has admitted the facts constituting them or has had an opportunity of defending himself against them. Under clause (9) “the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge.” Clause (10) provides for issue of show cause notice. Under clause (9) “the Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge.” Clause (10) provides for issue of show cause notice. 12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to re-consider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9” 11.2) Following the judgment in K.R. Deb (referred supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanailal Bera (referred supra) has held as under: “6. … Once a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated, the same must be brought to its logical end meaning thereby a finding is required to be arrived at as to whether the delinquent officer is guilty of charges leveled against him or not. In a given situation further evidences may be directed to be adduced but the same would not mean that despite holding a delinquent officer to be partially guilty of the charges leveled against him another inquiry would be directed to be initiated on the selfsame charges which would not be proved in the first inquiry.” 11.3) Similarly, in the case of K.D. Pandey (referred supra) , it has been held as under: “5. ….. In fact from the order made by the Railway Board as well as from that part of the file where the inquiry report made earlier is discussed, it is clear that specific findings have been given in respect of each of the charges after discussing the matter and, if that is so, we fail to understand as to how there could have been a remit to the inquiry authority for further enquiry. Indeed this resulted in second inquiry and not in a further inquiry on the same set of charges and the material on record. Indeed this resulted in second inquiry and not in a further inquiry on the same set of charges and the material on record. If this process is allowed the inquiries can go on perpetually until the view of the inquiry authority is in accord with that of the disciplinary authority and it would be abuse of the process of law …..” (emphasis added) 12) In view of the above settled proposition of law, the action of respondent No.1 in imposing penalty on the petitioner relying on the second enquiry report cannot be sustained. 13) For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned punishment order is not sustainable under the law and liable to be set aside. 14) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned G.O.Rt.No.424, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Vig-I) Department, dated 29.06.2018, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to release the service benefits to the petitioner. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.