Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1120 (TS)

Dattu Panth v. State of Telangana

2025-09-26

PULLA KARTHIK

body2025
ORDER : Pulla Karthik, J. Since the lis in both these writ petitions is inter se related with each other, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order. 2) Heard Sri J.R.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Municipal Assistant Engineer by way of direct recruitment after his name was duly sponsored through Employment Exchange vide proceedings dated 28.05.1987. Later, his services were converted as Assistant Executive Engineer on 16.10.1993. Subsequently, he was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 2003, as Executive Engineer in the year 2014 and as Superintending Engineer in the year 218. Further, while he was working as Deputy Executive Engineer, a criminal case was registered against him alleging that he did not obtain prior permission or intimated to the Department about acquiring of properties and also he was kept under suspension vide proceedings dated 29.11.2007. Thereafter, on a representation being made by the petitioner, he was reinstated into service vide Government Memo dated 18.08.2008. Further, the Government has issued Charge Memo vide G.O.Ms.No.681, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, dated 25.11.2009 alleging that he committed grave misconduct as he neither obtained permission nor intimated to the Department about acquiring of movable and immovable properties and also failed to submit proforma I to VI property statements to the Department during his entire service, except for the year 1989, to which, the petitioner has also submitted his explanation. Though the charge memo was issued on 25.11.2009, no enquiry was conducted till 2017. As such, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.16421 of 2017 wherein initially this Hon’ble Court granted interim orders dated 05.06.2017, as per which, the petitioner was promoted as Superintending Engineer. Thereafter, on 07.03.2025, this Court has disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of one month thereof. As the respondents failed to conclude the enquiry within the said period, petitioner filed an I.A. in the said writ petition and on 29.04.2025, the said I.A. was ordered directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry by 02.07.2025 making it clear that if the enquiry is not completed by the said date, the subject charge memo dated 25.11.2009 stands dropped against the petitioner. Further, another charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.570, dated 16.08.2023, was also issued to the petitioner and he also submitted his explanation to the same. Though the Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry and submitted his report, no further proceedings took place in that regard. During the interregnum period i.e. on 31.03.2025, the petitioner has retired from service. Thereafter, the petitioner was sanctioned only provisional pension stating that two charge memo are pending against him. Therefore, seeking to direct the respondents to release full pension, gratuity and all other retiral benefits, petitioner has filed W.P. No.19967 of 2025. 3.1) Further, respondent No.1 has issued G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 30.06.2025 sanctioning initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner by invoking Rule 9 of TELANGANA REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed W.P. No.20557 of 2025. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 30.06.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and issued without jurisdiction. Further, on the same day, the respondents have also issued a charge memo alleging that the petitioner has acquired disproportionate assets, which allegations are similar to earlier charge memo dated 25.11.2009 i.e. the petitioner has acquired disproportionate assets during the period from December, 2004, to 20.10.2007. Learned counsel contends that as the petitioner has already retired from service on 31.03.2025 itself, no departmental proceedings can be initiated against him after his retirement except under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 of TELANGANA REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980. Learned counsel further contends that according to the allegations in the charge memo, the petitioner has acquired the disproportionate assets between December, 2004 and 2007 whereas the impugned charge memo dated 30.06.2025 is issued in respect of the allegations pertaining to the period more than 18 years ago. Therefore, as per Rule 9 (2) (ii) of the TELANGANA REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980, departmental proceedings cannot be issued in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such initiation. Further, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.680, dated 25.11.2009, ordering sanction of prosecution with regard to allegations of accusation of disproportionate assets. In pursuance thereof, the Government has filed a criminal case in C.C. No.14/2010 before the I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad. However, the Government has ordered for withdrawal of said prosecution. Accordingly, the criminal case was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.06.2013. In pursuance thereof, the Government has filed a criminal case in C.C. No.14/2010 before the I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad. However, the Government has ordered for withdrawal of said prosecution. Accordingly, the criminal case was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.06.2013. However, for the reasons best known to the respondents, they have not initiated departmental proceedings immediately thereafter. As such, after retirement of the petitioner, the respondents cannot initiate proceedings. Thus, the learned counsel contends that initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 30.06.2025, is without jurisdiction and contrary to Rule 9 (2) (ii) of TELANGANA REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to set aside the impugned G.O.Ms.No.154 dated 30.06.2025 and the consequential proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.312, dated 30.06.2025 issued by respondent No.1. 5) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that on credible information received from DSP, ACB, Hyderabad Range, in Radio message, dated 21.11.2007, that the petitioner was in possession of assets which are disproportionate to the known sources of his income, a case in crime No.26/ACB-HR/2007 was registered on 19.11.2007 for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, based on the final report of the Director General of ACB, the Government has accorded sanction to then Deputy Executive Engineer for prosecution of the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.680, MA & UD (Vig.I(2)) Dept., dated 25.11.2009. Consequently, departmental proceedings were initiated and Article of Charges were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.681, MA & UD (Vig.I (2)) Deptt., dated 25.11.2009, to the petitioner. Subsequently, as per the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.2173/2023, the State was permitted to withdraw the Prosecution launched against the petitioner in C.C. No.14 of 2010. Accordingly, the Additional Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad, vide order dated 10.03.2023 permitted withdrawal of the prosecution. Thereafter, the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 04.01.2024 has furnished draft Article of Charges to then Deputy Executive Engineer O/o.the Deputy Commissioner, L.B.Nagar circle, GHMC, R.R. District, for initiation of departmental action against the petitioner on the allegation of possession of disproportionate assets to the known sources of his income, for taking further action in the matter, in view of withdrawal of prosecution. Accordingly, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.152, MA & UD (Vig.I) Dept., dated 30.06.2025, has issued sanction order as required under sub-clause (1) of clause (b) of sub rule (2) of Rule 9 of TELANGANA REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980, to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner, who retired on 31.03.2025 on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, the revised charges come under the purview of sub-rule 6(a) of Rule 9 of TELANGANA REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980, and it cannot be made applicable to Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader contends that there are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the record. 7) As can be seen from the record, while the petitioner was working as Deputy Executive Engineer, admittedly, a criminal case was registered by the ACB authorities in crime No.26/ACB- HR/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, dated 19.11.2007, on the ground that he possessed disproportionate assets to the known sources of his income. Thereafter, the Government has accorded sanction for prosecution vide G.O.Rt.No.680, MA & UD (Vig.I (2)) Deptt., dated 25.11.2009, and also initiated departmental proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.681, MA & UD (Vig.I (2)) Deptt., dated 25.11.2009. However, at the request of the petitioner, the Government vide Memo No.24405/Vig.I(2)/2007, dated 28.05.2010, has decided to conduct departmental enquiry on the allegation of possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income against the petitioner while withdrawing the prosecution sanctioned against the petitioner. Para-4 of the Memo dated 28.05.2010 is reproduced hereunder for better understanding: “Government after careful examination of the matter, and having regard to the circumstances of the case have decided to conduct departmental enquiry on the allegation of possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income against Sri Dattu Panth, formerly Deputy Executive Engineer, L.B. Nagar Municipality, by withdrawing prosecution. Accordingly, Government hereby order to withdraw the prosecution ordered vide reference 2 nd cited and to conduct departmental enquiry against Sri Dattu Panth, formerly Deputy Executive Engineer, L.B. Nagar Municipality, Grater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad.” Though the said proceedings were issued in the year 2010, admittedly, the respondents have not initiated departmental proceedings and not issued Article of Charge till the date of retirement of the petitioner on 31.03.2025. However, basing on the memo dated 28.05.2010, after a lapse of 15 years, the present departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner that too after his retirement vide impugned G.O.Rt.No.154, dated MA & UD (Vig.I) Department, dated 30.06.2025. 8) Here, it is relevant to state that 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. 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) Further, the contention of the respondents is that orders in question were issued under sub-rule (6) (a) of Rule 9 of TELANGANA REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980. To adjudicate upon this, it is necessary to refer G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 30.06.2025, and G.O.Rt.No.312, MA & UD (Vig.I) Department, dated 30.06.2025. 9) Further, the contention of the respondents is that orders in question were issued under sub-rule (6) (a) of Rule 9 of TELANGANA REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980. To adjudicate upon this, it is necessary to refer G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 30.06.2025, and G.O.Rt.No.312, MA & UD (Vig.I) Department, dated 30.06.2025. 9.1) Relevant portion of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 30.06.2025, reads as under: “Government, after careful examination of the matter hereby accord sanction under sub-clause (1) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule-9 of the TELANGANA REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980 to initiate departmental proceedings against Sri Dattu Panth, the then Deputy Executive Engineer (now Retd) O/o. the Deputy Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, R.R. District.” 9.2) Relevant portion of G.O.Rt.No.312, MA & UD (Vig.I) Department, dated 30.06.2025, is also necessary to be reproduced hereunder: “4. In pursuance to the report 5 th read above, orders issued in the G.O. 6 th read above and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 r/w Rule 9(2) of Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980 it is proposed to hold an enquiry against Sri Dattu Panth, the then Deputy Executive Engineer, O/o.the Deputy Commissioner, L.B. Nagar Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, R.R. District, on the allegation of possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income.” 9.3) From the above, it is clear that the authorities have taken to the shelter under Rule 9 (2) (b) of TELANGANA REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980, for initiating action against the petitioner. When that be so, now the respondents cannot improve their case by way of counter referring to Rule 9 (6)(a) of the TELANGANA REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner , [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 ] wherein it is held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. 10) Further, it is also relevant to state that by virtue of the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No.1 of 2025 in W.P. No.16421 of 2017, the earlier Charge Memo issued under G.O.Ms.No.681, dated 25.11.2009 is deemed to have been dropped against the petitioner. 11) For the afore-mentioned reasons, the impugned charge memo dated 30.06.2025 is not sustainable under the law and therefore liable to be set aside. 12) Accordingly, Writ Petition No.20557 of 2025 is allowed and the impugned G.O.Ms.No.154, dated MA & UD (Vig.I) Department, dated 30.06.2025, as well as G.O.Rt.No.312, MA & UD (Vig.I) Department, dated 30.06.2025, are set aside. 13) Consequently, Writ Petition No.19967 of 2025 is also allowed directing the respondents to release full pension, gratuity and other retrial benefits to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.