Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 805 (TS)

J. Nagaiah v. State of Telangana

2025-06-09

PULLA KARTHIK

body2025
ORDER: PULLA KARTHIK, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….. to declare the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the orders in CCLA’s Proceedings No.VS.IV (2)/1881/2016 dated 02.08.2019 where at the Respondent No.2 has upheld the orders of the 3rd Respondent issued vide Proceedings No.A4/158/2016 dated 11-12-2016 as arbitrary, illegal and in contravention of the provisions of 21 & 22 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Conduct & Appeal) Rules, 1991 and set aside the CCLA’s Proceedings No.VS.IV(2)/1881/2016 dated 02.08.2019 and consequently suspend the operation of the orders issued by the Respondent No.3 issued vide Proceedings No.A4/158/2016 dated 11-12-2016....” 2) Heard Sri T.Vijay Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Village Revenue Officer, an Article of Charge vide Proc.No.A4/158/2016, dated 28.03.2016, was issued by respondent No.3 against the petitioner alleging that while he was working as In-charge VRO of Kalwaral Village, he has created bogus Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds by changing the names in old Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in respect of survey no.158 of Kalwaral Village, to which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 31.03.2016. As the said explanation was not convincing, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a detailed enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry and submitted Enquiry Report on 19.09.2016 holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Further, based on the said Enquiry Report, the third respondent, vide Proc.No.A4/158/2016, dated 11.12.2016, has imposed the punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect and the suspension period was directed to be ‘not on duty’ in terms of FR-54 (B)(7). Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, who vide order dated 02.08.2019, has dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner without adjudicating the grounds raised by the petitioner in proper perspective. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, who vide order dated 02.08.2019, has dismissed the appeal in a mechanical manner without adjudicating the grounds raised by the petitioner in proper perspective. Learned counsel has contended that the Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry in the manner prescribed under Rules 21 and 22 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Conduct & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short ‘CCA’ Rules’), and copy of Enquiry Report was not furnished on the petitioner as mandated under Rule 21 (2) of the CCA Rules and the same caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the imposition of punishment on the petitioner suffers for want of observation of principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. Hence, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be interfered with. Learned counsel has further submitted that charge memo issued to the petitioner is vague in nature and no specific incident was attributed. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to set aside the punishment order dated 11.12.2016 and the order dated 02.08.2019 passed by the appellate authority. Reliance has been placed on: a) Sunkara Sujana v. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District , [ 2014 (3) ALD 70 ] b) Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan , [ (1991) 1 SCC 588 ] ; and c) Zaheer Ahmed Khan v. A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, 2014 (3) ALD 51 4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that the Tahsildar, Sadashiv Nagar, has submitted a report dated 08.01.2016 stating that the petitioner has created bogus Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in respect of survey No.158 of Kalwaral Village, which is a Government land and not a patta land, duly tampering the village records and pahani, and issued manual pahani nakal to one N.Suresh S/o.Chinna Parvaiah R/o.Kalwaral. It is further reported that earlier the petitioner was also warned for misguiding the officers to make online pahani to the persons who were not actual pattadars. Basing on the above report, respondent No.3 has framed charges under Rule 20 of CCA Rules vide charge memo dated 28.03.2016. Thereafter, the charged officer has submitted his explanation, which was not convincing. It is further reported that earlier the petitioner was also warned for misguiding the officers to make online pahani to the persons who were not actual pattadars. Basing on the above report, respondent No.3 has framed charges under Rule 20 of CCA Rules vide charge memo dated 28.03.2016. Thereafter, the charged officer has submitted his explanation, which was not convincing. Hence, respondent No.3 has appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, as Enquiry Officer, who in turn, after conducting the enquiry, has submitted Enquiry Report vide Lr.No.A4/4847/2016, dated 19.09.2016, holding that the charges framed against the Charged Officer are proved. Based on the said Enquiry Report, respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 11.12.2016 has awarded the punishment of stoppage of four Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect under Rule 9 (vi) of CCA Rules and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide proceedings dated 02.08.2019. Therefore, the respondents are justified in imposing the punishment on the petitioner for the proven charges. It is further submitted that as per Rule 21 (5) of CCA Rules, if the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the findings on all or any of the Articles of Charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that, any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 of CCA Rules should be imposed on the Government Servant, it is not necessary to give the Government Servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that only on the ground that Enquiry Report was not furnished to the delinquent officer, the punishment cannot be set aside and the petitioner has to state what prejudice is caused to him for not furnishing the enquiry report. It is further contended that the petitioner instead of filing an appeal before the Government has approached this Court. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the record. 6) The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the copy of enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner and in the absence of availability of the enquiry report, the petitioner was prejudiced. 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the record. 6) The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the copy of enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner and in the absence of availability of the enquiry report, the petitioner was prejudiced. 7) To adjudicate upon the said contention, this Court feels it is necessary to refer Rule 21 (2) of the CCA Rules, which reads as under: “The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation of submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant.” 8) A bare reading of the above Rule makes it abundantly clear that copy of the enquiry report shall necessarily be furnished on the delinquent officer so as to enable him to submit his written representation. 9) In this regard, it is apt to mention that a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar , AIR 1994 SC 1074 has held that when the Enquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. It further held that such a right is a part of the employee’s right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him and a denial of the Enquiry Officer’s report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice. It therefore held that the delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject and it should be furnished irrespective of the nature of punishment. It also held that failure on the part of the employee to ask for the report  cannot be construed as a waiver of his right and that whether or not he asks for the report, it has to be furnished to him. It further held that the employee has a right to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the findings recorded in the enquiry report and this right is an integral part of the opportunity of defence against the charges. Denial of such a right, the Court held, is a breach of principles of natural justice. 10) Following the above said principle of law, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Zaheer Ahmed Khan’s case (referred supra) has held as under: “50. The plea of non-supply of enquiry report copy was specifically raised by the petitioner in the appeal before the Tribunal, but this point has not even been adverted to by the Tribunal. The petitioner was gravely prejudiced by non- supply of the enquiry report dated 15.1.2005 of M.A. Hafeez Siddiqui and he was denied an opportunity to represent against the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the Board. In this view of the matter, there can be no doubt that there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice….” 11) In the instant case, admittedly, the copy of the enquiry report wherein the charges levelled against the delinquent employee were held proved, was not served on the petitioner and non-furnishing of the Enquiry Officer’s Report on the delinquent employee, before the Disciplinary Authority takes a decision on the charges, is nothing but denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 12) In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 02.08.2019 and 11.12.2016 passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 respectively are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3 to follow Rule 21 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Conduct & Appeal) Rules, 1991, furnish a copy of the Enquiry Report dated 19.09.2016 and thereafter pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. 13) The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.