Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 491 (TS)

G. Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana

2025-04-30

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

body2025
ORDER : NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. The present Writ Petition questions the action of the 2 nd respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension vide impugned proceedings No.2772018/E/2024, dated 16.10.2024. 2. Heard Sri A. Phani Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III for respondents. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Technical Assistant through the Public Service Commission and posted to the office of the Assistant Director, Mines, Mancherial. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted as In-Charge Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Mahabubnagar, on 31.05.2021. While so, the MLA, Jadcherla, made a complaint to the Minister for Revenue I & PR Government of Telangana, raised certain issues against M/s Sri Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures developed by Giridari Construction Limited and the Minister for Revenue I & PR Government of Telangana, directed Addl. Collector Revenue to submit factual report in the matter. Pursuant to the same, Additional Collector Revenue had enquired into the matter and submitted his report to the Minister on 23.01.2024. Thereafter, upon instructions of the 4 th respondent, the petitioner inspected the subject area in Sy.No.118/P of Balanagar Village and Mandal, and upon noticing certain deviations, the petitioner had issued a show-cause notice dated 28.02.2024 to M/s Sri Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures pointing out the lapses and directed to submit their explanation and show-cause as to why the penalty of Rs.5,12,49,748/- of seignorage fee cannot be imposed against them. 3(1). In pursuant to the above said show-cause notice dated 28.02.2024, M/s Sri Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures had submitted their explanation dated 05.03.2024 stating that they did not commit any irregularities as alleged in the show-cause notice and in the layout, and they have placed the reliance on the Government Order issued vide G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 12.11.2013 wherein the Government had exempted the seignorage fee for levelling the land for agriculture/civil purpose which is other than mining purpose. Thereafter, the Surveyor, office of the AD Mines and Geology surveyed on 07.03.2024 to cull out the truth of the explanation and submitted his report on 07.03.2024 showing elevation in meters with C Level from August 2017 to June 2023 in as many as 8 points. Based on the explanation submitted by the M/s Sri Varahi Infra-Developers and Ventures, the report submitted by the Surveyor and in view of the orders in G.O.Ms. Based on the explanation submitted by the M/s Sri Varahi Infra-Developers and Ventures, the report submitted by the Surveyor and in view of the orders in G.O.Ms. No.139, dated 12.11.2013, the petitioner issued a letter, dated 07.03.2024 dropping the further action pursuant to the show-cause notice, dated 28.02.2024 against M/s Sri Varahi Infra-Developers and Ventures. 3(2). Thereafter, the Government issued orders vide G.O.Rt.No.43, dated 14.03.2024 transferring the Gazette Officers working in Mines and Geology Department and wherein the petitioner was also subjected to transfer from Medak and In-Charge Mahabubnagar, to Jangaon and pursuant to thereof, the petitioner joined as an Assistant Geologist on 15.03.2024 and he was also placed as In- Charge Assistant Director of Jangaon. Subsequent to transfer of the petitioner, the 4 th respondent is said to have been issued proceedings dated 21.05.2024, constituting Four men committee comprising of the R.D.O., Mahabubnagar, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jadcherla, ADSLR, Mahabubnagar, and Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, to enquire in detail on the allegations. The Committee submitted their report on 28.05.2024 by observing that a quantity of 1,67,396/- Metric Ton was brought/processed from outside the Venture area and recommended action against the developers and thereafter, the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology and District Collector submitted their reports on 29.05.2024 and 15.10.2024 respectively to the 2nd respondent and recommended for action against the developers. Subsequently, While the petitioner was discharging his duties, the 2 nd respondent had issued impugned proceedings vide proceedings No.2772018/E/2024, dated 16.10.2024, placing the petitioner under suspension by alleging that the petitioner had dropped further action against M/s Sri Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures. Submissions on behalf of petitioners. 3(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of initiating appropriate action against M/s Sri Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures, surprisingly, the 2nd respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension and upon careful perusal of suspension orders dated 16.10.2024, the contents would reveal that it is a clear case of political vengeance between local MLA and M/S Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures and that the respondents did the entire exercise to satisfy their political bosses, and the petitioner was made a sufferer. 3(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the purpose of placing an employee under suspension is to avoid tampering with evidence, manipulation of records and prevent petitioner to exert undue influence on the witnesses pending disciplinary proceedings. 3(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the purpose of placing an employee under suspension is to avoid tampering with evidence, manipulation of records and prevent petitioner to exert undue influence on the witnesses pending disciplinary proceedings. In the case on hand, the petitioner was already transferred from Mahabubnagar to Jangaon as early on 14.03.2024 and as such, there was no occasion to tamper with the evidence or to influence the witness, as such, placing the petitioner under suspension is wholly unwarranted. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that subsequent to the transfer of the petitioner the enquiry was ordered by respondent No.4 and a four member committee comprising of the R.D.O., Mahabubnagar, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jadcherla, ADSLR, Mahabubnagar, and Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad, was constituted to re-enquire in detail on the allegations on M/S Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures in Sy.no.118/P, Balanagar village and mandal and submit a joint survey and inspection report. Accordingly, they concluded that the NALA position diverted earlier as per the field observation and a quantity of 1,67,396 MT of Gravel was brought/processed from outside the venture area amounting to Rs.46,59,068/- Normal Seigniorage fee. Further, as per the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 “If any ??rs?n carries on quarrying operations or transports minor minerals in contravention of these rules, he shall be liable to pay as penalty, such enhanced seigniorage fee together assessments as may be imposed by an Officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geology" 4(i) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that under the prescribed rule, ten times penalty amounting to Rs.4,65,90,680/- was imposed against the M/s Sri Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures together with Normal Seigniorage fee of Rs.46,59,068/- aggregating to Rs.5,12,49,748/- and accordingly the show cause notice dated 28.02.2024 was issued to M/S Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures. It is clearly established that the negligent and incorrect action of the petitioner in dropping the show cause notice, dated 28.02.2024 leads to huge mineral revenue loss to the government exchequer. Hence, respondent No.2 issued suspension orders for the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner in discharging the duties, which leads to huge revenue loss to the Government exchequer. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Hence, respondent No.2 issued suspension orders for the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner in discharging the duties, which leads to huge revenue loss to the Government exchequer. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, after going through the report submitted by the concerned Surveyor and the G.O.Ms.No.139, dropped further action against M/s Sri Varahi Infra-Developers and Ventures and the petitioner did not commit any mistake. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and should not be made as an administrative routine and without any reasonable grounds. He relied upon the order of this Court in G. Govindu Vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation , Hyderabad, and another , [ 2017(3) ALD 755 ] wherein this Court observed as under: “33. In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra), Supreme Court held: "21. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. The authority should also take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry. 27. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in the aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the Court may find out as to which version is true when there are claims and counter-claims on factual issues The Court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review…. 29. More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the Court may find out as to which version is true when there are claims and counter-claims on factual issues The Court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review…. 29. However, as the suspension order constitutes a great hardship to the person concerned as it leads to reduction in emoluments, adversely affects his prospects of promotion and also carried a stigma, an order of suspension should not be made in a perfunctory or in a routine and casual manner but with due care and caution after taking all factors into account.” 38. As noted above, though, power to place an officer/employee under suspension is conceded to employer/competent authority and can be resorted to enforce discipline; convey to all the employees that dereliction of duty cannot be tolerated; to ensure that employee would not create impediment; and having regard to the gravity of allegations, in larger public interest, it is necessary to suspend, but such power must be exercised sparingly and should not be made as an administrative routine or an automatic consequence of alleged disobedience and detailed assessment must be made. It should not be resorted to as a matter of course in all and sundry cases of allegation of misconduct and should be resorted to such course sparingly and in the larger interest of the organization and in public interest. Whenever, a person is placed under suspension, the disciplinary proceedings should be concluded within a fixed time frame. The Courts are cautioning the employer to resort to suspension on careful consideration of the pros and cons and should be resorted to sparingly.”(also observed by this hon’ble court in G. Shashi Kumar Vs. TSRTC , Hyderabad and another , [ 2017(3) ALD 605 ] 6. In the present case, the petitioner after going through the report submitted by the concerned Surveyor and the G.O.Ms.No.139, dropped further action against M/s Sri Varahi Infra-Developers and Ventures and based on such action, he was placed under suspension after effecting his transfer. In the present case, on the one hand, the petitioner was transferred from Mahabubnagar to Jangaon as an In-Charge Assistant Director of Jangaon and on the other hand, suspension orders were issued. In the present case, on the one hand, the petitioner was transferred from Mahabubnagar to Jangaon as an In-Charge Assistant Director of Jangaon and on the other hand, suspension orders were issued. For a single allegation that the petitioner dropped further action against M/S Varahi Infra Developers Ventures, two punishments cannot be sustained, as such, the action of the respondents is bad in law. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service pending disciplinary proceedings and he may be posted as an In- Charge Assistant Director of Jangaon. The respondents are further directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in a time bound manner, preferably, within a period of (06) six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed . No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.