Point of law: doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary or technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy either because the party has, by his conduct done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it, or where by his conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and delay are most material.

ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing for the respondents.

2. Petitioner joined service as Junior Assistant in the year 2010, promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2013, further promoted as Deputy Tahsildar (Civil Supplies) in the year 2019 and now aspiring for promotion as Assistant Civil Supply Officer. Petitioner is challenging the order of punishment dated 31.12.2016 withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide his proceedings dated 12.09.2017.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has not followed the procedure specified in Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'the CCA Rules, 1991'), more particularly the procedure prescribed in Rule 20 while conducting disciplinary proceedings and imposing punishment and on that ground alone, the proceedings are liable to be set aside.

4. According to learned counsel, charges were framed under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. Rule 20 mandates to hold detailed enquiry by following the procedure indicated therein, prepare report of enquiry, call for explanation on the findings of enquiry, consider the explanation against findings of Enquiry Officer and to pass orders as warranted. Once charges are framed under Rule 20, before imposing punishment, minor or major, per force, the entire gamut of the Rule has to be observed. While so, in the instant case, the said procedure was not followed. The Disciplinary Authority called for explanation on the charges framed against petitioner, considered the explanation offered by petitioner, held personal hearing and straight away imposed punishment. Aggrieved thereby, on appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority desired to enhance the punishment, but again without following due procedure, he straight away issued show cause notice by recording the findings independently and called for explanation. On submission of explanation, the Appellate Authority though dropped the proceedings, without assigning reasons, the order of punishment is affirmed. She therefore, submitted that the entire procedure is ex-facie illegal and therefore, the punishment imposed is not sustainable.

5. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 2753 of 2020 dated 27.07.2020.

6. Rule 9 of the CCA Rules specify range of punishments those can be imposed against a delinquent employee. They are broadly classified as major punishments and minor punishments. Withholding of increment without cumulative effect is a minor punishment. Rule 20 prescribes detailed procedure required to be followed on charges drawn in accordance with the CCA Rules and after the proceedings are concluded, it is open to the Disciplinary Authority to impose any of the punishments specified in Rule 9. Rule 22 prescribes summary procedure to impose minor punishments. At the threshold, on noticing that an employee has committed misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority may assess the nature of delinquency as grave or minor. If he is of the opinion that what is alleged is only a minor misconduct, he can resort to Rule 22 to conduct summary proceedings and impose punishment. If Rule 22 is resorted to, it is not required to conduct detailed enquiry as specified in Rule 20. However, even in case of minor misconduct decision to hold gamut of procedure envisaged under Rule 20 or summary procedure has to be taken at the initial stage only.

7. Rule 20 vests discretion in the Disciplinary Authority to conduct enquiry on his own or to appoint an Inquiry Officer. In case, the Disciplinary Authority appoints an Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer is required to follow detailed procedure, submit his report holding the charges proved, partly proved or not proved. On receiving the report of Inquiry Offi