Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 126 (TS)

Tejavath Rajitha v. State of Telangana

2025-03-17

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I I appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to call for the records pertaining to Charge Memos dated 10.01.2018 and dated 15.05.2019 and set them aside as bad, illegal, irrational, illogical, baseless, trivial, belated and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Administrative Officer with effect from the date on which she is entitled / availability of vacancy, with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ of Mandamus/ Certiorari or to issue Writ, Order or Direction in the interest of justice and to pass 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner joined in the respondent department as typist on 28.11.2008 and got promoted as senior assistant on 03.01.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner had not been considered for promotion to the post of Administrative officer due to pendency of two Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner’s further case is that one of the disciplinary proceedings i.e., charge memo, dated 10.01.2018 needs to be set aside as the proceedings against the other similarly placed persons were withdrawn and the another proceedings i.e., charge memo, dated 15.05.2019 with regard to surprise check in the year 2016 is untenable as there is no specific allegation and evidence against the petitioner herein. Hence the petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking to set aside and quash both the disciplinary proceedings and also sought direction to respondents to consider the petitioners request for promotion to the post of Administrative officer. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- A. Letter No.117/ V3/ V2/ 2016, dated 03.05.2021 addressed by the Joint Transport Commissioner (V), Office of the Transport Commissioner, Telangana, Hyderabad addressed to the Director General of ACB, Anti Corruption of Bureau, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad is extracted hereunder:- “In the reference 4 th and 5 th cited, copies of the documents mentioned in Annexure IV of the articles of charges pertaining to the surprise check conducted by ACB Officials on 04.01.2016 in the office of the DTC, Karimnagar, were requested as desired by the charged officers so as to communicate the same to the individuals for submitting their written statements of defence. But till date no reply has been received in this office. But till date no reply has been received in this office. B. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and in particular para Nos. 4, 6 & 8 are extracted hereunder:- 4. It is submitted that there are two pending against Smt T.Rajitha, Senior Assistant i.e., ACB case and one Departmental case. Facts relevant to the present Writ Petition are that, with regard to Departmental Case (File.No.2687/ V1/ 2017); the charge was dropped by Govt.vide G.O.Rt No.162, dated 04.04.2023, Tr.R&B (Tr.Vig.) Department and the same was communicated to the individual on 16.06.2023. Hence, no charge is pending against the petitioner in this regard. 6. It is submitted that in response thereto, in Lr.No.Nil, dated 10.08.2021, the Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar District furnished the listed documents of the Article of Charges framed against the petitioner Smt Tejavath Rajitha, Senior Assistant and others. The said documents were furnished to all the charged officers, vide Transport Commissioner Office Memo.No.117/V3/V2/2016, dated 24.08.2021. In response thereto, explanations of all the charged officers including the petitioner herein received, regular inquiry was ordered by appointing Sr M.Chandra Shekhar, the then Deputy Transport Commissioner, Karimnagar presently working as Deputy Transport Commissioner, Ranga Reddy District as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner herein and others. The I nquiry officer after due enquiry submitted his Enquiry Report on dated 22.05.2024. The same is under consideration 8. It is submitted that with regard to here request for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, during the panel year 2020-21, the Department convened DPC on 04.02.2021 to the post of Administrative Officer and the name of Smt T.Rajitha, Senior Assistant, the petitioner herein has been placed before the DPC for consideration as per the then seniority and eligibility. I t is noticed that, she was issued charge Memos in tw o Disciplinary cases i.e., in one ACB case Charge Memo. No.117/ v3/ V2/ 2016, dated 15.05.2019 and in one Departmental case Charge Memo.No.5687/ V1/ 2017, dated 10.01.2018. Hence, the DPC recommended that “the name of Smt T.Rajitha is considered and pass over as charges were pending against her” . No.117/ v3/ V2/ 2016, dated 15.05.2019 and in one Departmental case Charge Memo.No.5687/ V1/ 2017, dated 10.01.2018. Hence, the DPC recommended that “the name of Smt T.Rajitha is considered and pass over as charges were pending against her” . The DPC considered the next name of Sri M.A.Khaleel Ahmed, Senior Assistant Who is junior in the then seniority list of Senior Assistant of erstw hile Zone- V along with others and recommended his name for promotion as Administrative Officer as per eligibility. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 5. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in particular para Nos. 4, 6 & 8 clearly indicates that with regard to Departmental case the charge was dropped by Government vide G.O.Rt.No.162, dated 04.04.2023 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 16.06.2023 hence, no charge is pending against the petitioner in this regard, and further that the charges were framed against the petitioner herein as per the orders of the Government in Memo No.5261/ Tr.(S&V)/ 2/ 2018, dated 04.05.2019 consequent to a surprise check conducted by ACB Officials on 04.01.2016 in the office of DTC, Karimnagar and in response to the Charge Memo, dated 15.05.2019 issued to the petitioner herein, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 27.05.2019 seeking the listed documents from the respondents to enable the petitioner to submit written statement of defence, but how ever, the respondents had failed to submit the reply and thereafter a reminder letter, dated 03.07.2020 and 03.05.2021 was addressed to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad to furnish the documents at the earliest and in pursuance to the above said reminder letter, all the documents had been furnished to all the charged officers vide office Memo, dated 24.08.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner furnished the explanation to the Charge Memos issued to the petitioner and an Enquiry Authority had been appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner herein and others, subsequently, the Enquiry Officer after due enquiry submitted an Enquiry report, dated 22.05.2024 and the same is under consideration. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner furnished the explanation to the Charge Memos issued to the petitioner and an Enquiry Authority had been appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner herein and others, subsequently, the Enquiry Officer after due enquiry submitted an Enquiry report, dated 22.05.2024 and the same is under consideration. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the surprise check conducted on 04.01.2016 had been basis to issue the Charge Memo, dated 15.05.2019 against the petitioner herein and therefore, the charge memo, dated 15.05.2019 issued to the petitioner by the 2 nd respondent is baseless and trivial and the same had been pending since 2019 and the other charge memo, dated 10.01.2018 issued to the petitioner pertaining to Departmental case had been dropped as admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents at para No.4. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that in view of the fact that the enquiry in respect of the charge memo, dated 15.05.2019 is being delayed and further the charge memo had been issued belatedly after the incident took place in the year 2016, the charge memo has to be set aside, since the petitioner is loosing opportunities for promotion and those junior to the petitioner are being promoted. 8. This Court taking into consideration the specific averments made at para No.6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) that the I nquiry Officer had concluded the enquiry and submitted an enquiry report, dated 22.05.2024 and the same is under consideration is not inclined to allow the Writ Petition as prayed for. 9. Taking into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I I appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The contents of letter No.117/ V3/ V2/ 2016, dated 03.05.2021 addressed by the Joint Transport Commissioner (V), Office of the Transport Commissioner, Telangana, Hyderabad addressed to the Director General of ACB, Anti Corruption of Bureau, Government of Telangana (referred to and extracted above) d) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above ). c) The contents of letter No.117/ V3/ V2/ 2016, dated 03.05.2021 addressed by the Joint Transport Commissioner (V), Office of the Transport Commissioner, Telangana, Hyderabad addressed to the Director General of ACB, Anti Corruption of Bureau, Government of Telangana (referred to and extracted above) d) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above ). The Writ Petition is disposed of observing as under:- This Court opines that in view of the fact as borne on record that charge memo, dated 15.05.2019 of the 2 nd respondent pertained to a surprise check pertaining to an incident that took place in the year, 2016 and since the issue is pending since 2019 and the counter affidavit at para No.6 clearly indicates that the Inquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 22.05.2024, the respondents are directed to conclude the said disciplinary proceedings within three (03) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Pending conclusion of the said disciplinary proceedings pertaining to charge memo, dated 15.05.2019 issued to the petitioner by the 2 nd respondent within the time period as indicated as above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance to law for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer with effect from date on which the petitioner is entitled/ availability of the vacancy with all consequential benefits without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pertaining to charge memo, dated 15.05.2019 issued to the petitioner by the 2 nd respondent and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.