Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 260 (TS)

Mengani Raju v. State of Telangana

2025-04-07

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : (SUREPALLI NANDA, J.) Heard Sri Erigi Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchyat Raj, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP, MPP, P.S., appearing on behalf of respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under : “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are not allowing the petitioner to perform his duties as Karobar in the office of Morraipally Grampanchayath as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Telangana Panchayath Raj Act and violating Articles 14, 19 of the Constitution of India and pass...”. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is working as Karobar in the office of Morraipally Grampanchayat from 02.02.2002 with monthly salary of Rs.300/- and thereafter salary was hiked to Rs.1000/- per month vide proceedings dated 21.06.2004 and salary had been enhanced from time to time. On 21.01.2022, one Annel Das Ganesh lodged a complaint against the petitioner and 4 th respondent conducted enquiry and submitted his report to 3 rd respondent. The 3 rd respondent finally issued proceedings dated 22.03.2022 directing the 5 th and 6 th respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of salary. But the 5 th and 6 th respondents are not allowing the petitioner to perform his duties in Morraipally Grampanchayath Office. The petitioner made a representation dated 06.04.2022 to respondent Nos.4 and 5. The 5 th and 6 th respondents have jointly issued letter No.04/2022, dated 08.04.2022 appointing the petitioner as tractor driver. The petitioner submitted another representation dated 18.04.2023 to the 5 th respondent to permit him to sign in the attendant register but the 5 th and 6 th respondents are not allowing the petitioner to discharge. The 5 th and 6 th respondent issued letter No.8/2023 stating that there was no vacancy in the office of Morraipally Grampanchayath. The 3 rd respondent issued proceedings No. R2/137/2019-P, dated 22.03.2022, but the 4 th and 6 th respondents are not implementing the said proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD 4. The 3 rd respondent issued proceedings No. R2/137/2019-P, dated 22.03.2022, but the 4 th and 6 th respondents are not implementing the said proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD 4. The Proceedings vide Letter No.62/ 82/ 2022-Year, dated 22.03.2022 of the Zilla Panchayat Officer, Rajanna Sirisilla District is extracted hereunder: “Subject :- Regarding - Panchayati's - Multipurpose Employees - Shri Mogani Raju, Multipurpose Employee (Assistant Secretary), reappointing him for Mustabad Panchayati as the allegations against him are not substantiated, Ref : 1. Complaint by Shri Anil das Ganesh, District General Secretary, Telangana Gram Panchayat Employees & Workers Union dated 21.01.2022. 2. This office letter No. R. 2/8/7/2022 dated 01.02.2022 3. Mandal Panchayat Officer, (Inquiry Officer) M.P.V. Vemulawada Urban Inquiry Report No. E/28/2022, dated 05.03.2022. *** On the above reference (1) On complaint received reference (2) Mandal Panchayati Officer (Inquiry Officer) M.P.S. Vemulawada Urban was ordered to investigate and submit a report. Mandal Panchayat Officer, (Inquiry Officer) M.P.V. Mr. Vemulawada Urban conducted an inquiry and Mr. Mogani Raju, Multipurpose Employee, Village, Moyinapalli District, Mustabad has submitted a report through reference (3) recommending that the allegations of irregularities in the performance of duties have not been proved, so he should rejoin immediately and also be paid the salary for the period of absence. Therefore, in this matter Sarpanch/Panchayati Secretary, Gr. Moyinapalli, Mustabad have been informed to take Mr. Mogani Raju, as Multi-Purpose Employee on duty immediately and also to attend the duties as directed by the Sarpanch/Panchayati Secretary but to pay him the salary for the period”. 5. The letter addressed to the 5 th respondent dated 15.04.2023 by the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder: “Subject :- Regarding - In past I have submitted my sick leave, and to rejoin in my duties. *** On the above mentioned subject, I Mogani Raju, S/o. Chandraiah, R/o. Village Panchayati Moyinapally Village, I would like to mention here that, my health condition is not good so I have applied for the sick leave in past, and I worked as Kalibar in Village Panchayati office, now I want to rejoin to my duties. My sincere request is to please grant permission to rejoin in my duties’. Yours sincerely, Sd/-xx Mogani Raju (Assistant Secretary) S/o. Chandraiah Village : Moryipally Mandal : Mustabad District: Rajanna, Sirisilla. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION : 6. My sincere request is to please grant permission to rejoin in my duties’. Yours sincerely, Sd/-xx Mogani Raju (Assistant Secretary) S/o. Chandraiah Village : Moryipally Mandal : Mustabad District: Rajanna, Sirisilla. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION : 6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that vide Proceedings Letter No. 62/82/2022-Year, Dated 22.03.2022 issued by the 3 rd respondent (referred to and extracted above), wherein it is clearly indicated that the Mandal Panchayat Officer conducted inquiry against the petitioner, and submitted a report recommending that the allegations of irregularities have not been proved and the Sarpanch/Panchayati Secretary of Mustabad had been informed to take the petitioner as Multi- Purpose Employee on duty immediately and permit the petitioner to attend the duties as directed by the Saparanch/Panchayati Secretary and to pay salary to the petitioner for the said period, but however, the said proceedings dated 22.03.2022 of the 3 rd respondent had not been implemented as on date. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the said proceedings dated 22.03.2022 of the Distrcit Panchayat Officer, Rajanna Sirisilla District and the clear observations made thereunder in favour of the petitioner contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner had not been substantiated, therefore, petitioner needs to be re-appointed for Mustabad Panchayati. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 18.04.2022, in pursuance to the proceedings dated 22.03.2022 issued by the 3 rd respondent, to the 5 th respondent herein, whereby the petitioner requested the 5 th respondent to permit the petitioner to join duties as Karobar in office of Morraipally Grampanchayath, Musthabad Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District. However, though the said representation had been acknowledged by the respondents’ way back i.e., on 18.04.2022, yet the respondents have not initiated any action and passed any orders as on date permitting the petitioner to join duty as Karobar in the office of Morraipally Grampanchayath, Musthabad Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 placed reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, The said para No.5 is extracted hereunder “ 5. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 placed reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, The said para No.5 is extracted hereunder “ 5. In reply to paragraphs No.2 to 7 of the affidavit that it is submitted that 5 th Respondent have issued the notice on 08-04-2022 directing the petitioner to reinstating into the job as the tractor driver and later, issued the second notice on 16-04-2022 to resume as a pump operator for water supply further, issued third notice on 06-06-2023 by the 5 th respondent to join the duty with immediate effect failing which the petitioner shall be removed from his job. The petitioner issued the reply notice stating his ill health condition and However, from the march 2021 petitioner have not resumed his duty till today, it appears that the petitioner is working as Booth Level Officer (BLO) under ward no.248 in election commission officer and Reporter at "Voice New" daily Newspaper. Petitioner herein drawing multiple salaries which itself is illegal and not valid in the eye of law”. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 contends that several notices have been issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to join duty officially as a Tractor Driver and thereafter as a Pump Operator for water supply. However, the petitioner did not respond to the said notices and failed to join duty. Since March, 2021, though at one stage petitioner issued a reply notice to the said notices stating that due to his ill-health condition petitioner could be permitted to join duty petitioner however did not make any efforts to report and join work and therefore there is no illegality on the part of the 5 th respondent as alleged by the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner however disputes the receipt of notices to the petitioner. 11. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 5 th respondent clearly indicates that the 5 th respondent made all efforts to implement the proceedings vide Letter No. 62/82/2022 – Year, dated 22.03.2022 issued by the 3 rd respondent by duly considering the petitioner’s representation dated 18.04.2022 seeking permission to the petitioner to join duty as Karobar in office of Morraipally Grampanchayath, Musthabad Mandal, Rajanna Sirciplla District. 12. 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 the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, (c) The contents of the Proceedings vide Letter No.62/ 82/ 2022-Year, Dated 22.03.2022 issued by the 3 rd respondent (referred to and extracted above), (d) The averments made at para No.5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 5 th respondent (referred to and extracted above), The writ petition is disposed of. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth vide petitioner’s representation dated 18.04.2022 to permit the petitioner to join duty as Karobar in the office of Morraipally Grampanchayath, Musthabad Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by duly considering the proceedings of respondent No. 3 dated 22.03.2022, and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 18.04.2022, within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance to law and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner on the said representation dated 18.04.2022. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.