Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 167 (TS)

K. Maheshwar v. State of Telangana

2025-03-21

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner pursuant to Charge Memo No. A3/1138/2007 dated 27-01-2011 issued by the 3rd Respondent and thereby denying promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by un-explained laches and delay, contrary to the time limit stipulated for completion of enquiries in G.O. Ms. No. 679 dated 01- 11-2008 and provisions of Rule 20 of TSCS (CC and A) Rules, 1991 and to the law laid down in (1995) 2 SCC 570 and W.P.No.11294 of 2013 and batch dated 25-06- 2013 and further be pleased to hold that the Petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered and be promoted as Senior Assistant with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and to pass”. 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the Respondents are continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner pursuant to Charge Memo No. A3/1138/2007 dated 27.01.2011 issued by the 3 rd Respondent and thereby denying promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by un-explained laches and delay, contrary to the time limit stipulated for completion of enquiries in G.O. Ms. No. 679, dated 01.11.2008 and provisions of Rule 20 of TSCS (CC and A) Rules, 1991 and also the law laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 and the view of this Court in W.P.No.11294 of 2013 and batch dated 25.06.2013 Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD. 4. The interim orders of this Court, dated 22.11.2021 passed in I .A.No.01 of 2021 in W.P.No.29581 of 2021 is extracted hereunder:- “ The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, without reference to the Charge Memo issued on 27.01.2011 in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570 ” . 5. The judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570” and in particular para No.12 is extracted hereunder:- 13. Applying the balancing process, we are of the opinion that the quashing of charges and of the order appointing en- quiry officer was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately. Ibis direction is made in the particular facts and circumstances of the case though we are aware that the Rules and practice normally followed in such cases may be different. The promotion so made, if any, pending the enquiry shall, however, be subject to review after the conclusion of the enquiry and in the light of the findings in the enquiry. It is also directed that the enquiry against the respondent shall be concluded within eight months from today. The respondent shall cooperate in concluding the enquiry. It is obvious that if the respondent does not so cooperate, it shall be open to the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte. If the enquiry is not concluded and final orders are not passed within the aforesaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that several juniors are already promoted as Senior Assistants as per the Proceedings. If the enquiry is not concluded and final orders are not passed within the aforesaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that several juniors are already promoted as Senior Assistants as per the Proceedings. Ser.I V(1)/ 2874110/ 2024, dated 13.02.2025 and hence, in view of the interim orders of this Court dated 22.11.2021 passed in I .A.No.01 of 2021 in W.P.No.29581 of 2021, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated 25.06.2013 in W.P.Nos.11294, 10307, 10441 and 10488 of 2013 referring to the factum of the unexplained and the inordinate delay in continuing the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the unofficial respondents there under held that there was no illegality in the order of the Tribunal in quashing the proceedings in charge Memo issued to the unofficial respondents there under. 9. The Judgment of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board, dated 08.08.2005 reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and in particular at para Nos 6 & 11, it is observed as under:- 6. Mr. Prabhakar also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his case. It is stated in para 14 of the affidavit that the respondent with the mala fide intention issued the present charge memo against the appellant even though the alleged incident of issuance of sale deed was of the year 1990, which was 10 year prior to the issuance of charge memo and that very reason for issuing charge memo was that the appellant could be detained from promoting to the post of Chief Engineer of the Housing Board. 11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion 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 officer concerned. 11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion 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 officer 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. 10. The Apex Court in a catena of its judgments enlisted below held that the Courts have a duty to quash the proceedings due to delay. i) The Court of A.P. Vs. A.Rajdesw ar Reddy reported in 2010(3) ALD Page 501 (DB) ii) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of I ndia and Others reported in 2006 (5) SCC page 88. iii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570 . iv) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chow dury reported in 2009 (7) SCC Page 305. v) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565. 11. iii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570 . iv) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chow dury reported in 2009 (7) SCC Page 305. v) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565. 11. I n the present case admittedly, the Charge Memo issued by the 3 rd respondent against the petitioner is of the year 2011 i.e., dated 27.11.2011 and admittedly, even according to the respondents there is no progress in the said case and the same is pending consideration before the Disciplinary Authority, there is lapse on the part of the respondents in initiating an appropriate steps in concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner way back in the year 2011 and hence, at this length of time, this Court taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments referred to above opines, that it is not a fit case to continue the disciplinary proceedings in furtherance of the Charge Memo No.A3/ 1138/ 2007, dated 27.11.2011 issued to the petitioner by the 3 rd respondent herein putting the petitioner to further more hardship and agony. 12. 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 Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents c) The interim orders of this Court, dated 22.11.2021 passed in I .A.No.01 of 2021 in W.P.No.29581 of 2021 (referred to and extracted above). e) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.06.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.11294, 10307, 10441 & 10488 of 2013. f) The judgments of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above) i) The Court of A.P. Vs. A.Rajdesw ar Reddy reported in 2010(3) ALD Page 501 (DB) ii) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of I ndia and Others reported in 2006 (5) SCC page 88. iii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570 . iv) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chow dury reported in 2009 (7) SCC Page 305. v) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565. vi) P.V.Mahadevan Vs. iii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570 . iv) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chow dury reported in 2009 (7) SCC Page 305. v) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565. vi) P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board, dated 08.08.2005 reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 The Writ Petition is allow ed, declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Charge Memo No.A3/ 1138/ 2007, dated 27.11.2011 issued by the 3 rd respondent and thereby denying promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings as illegal, arbitrary vitiated by unexplained latches and delay and contrary to the law laid down in the judgment reported in 1995 vol 2 SCC 570 and W.P.Nos.11294 of 2013 & batch, dated 25.06.2013, and the proceedings in the said Charge Memo, dated 27.11.2021 issued to the petitioner are set-aside and the respondents are further directed to forthw ith consider claim of the petitioner for promotion as Senior Assistant with all consequential benefits with in a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order in accordance to law and pass appropriate orders on the said subject issue and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.