SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 313

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.
Panugothu Raju - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Irrigation & CAD Department, Hyderabad and another - Respondents
W.P. No.22223 of 2020
Decided On : 20-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Siva Raju Srinivas

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 311, 14 and 16 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 19 -- Termination of services - Demanded and accepted a bribe - Held, Court is not expressing merits alleged involvement of petitioner in criminal case respondents submitted that case against petitioner is pending adjudication before cases rightly contended by them relief sought by petitioner cannot be granted at this juncture in absence of outcome of trial - Petitioner was aware of every step of respondents through proper channel respondents rightly disclosed their steps to petitioner respondents have kept in mind rule position exigency in issue at hand and have passed impugned order - Writ Petition is dismissed

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

    “…to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner vide orders in proceedings no.RC/ENC/H2/18051123/2018 dt.05.09.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 311 of the Constitution of India, apart from Telangana State and Service Subordinate Rules, 1996 and consequently, set aside the proceedings No. RC/ENC/H2/18051123/2018 dt.05.09.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Assistant Engineer, I.B. Section, Narayanpur, I.B Sub – Division, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District and pass…”

2. It has been contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation & CAD Department vide proceedings dt.26.05.2016 and reported to duty on 06.06.2016 in IB Sub-Division Nalgonda of IB Division Nalgonda of Irrigation Circle, Nalgonda. While the petitioner was working in I.B. Section, Narayanpur, as Assistant Engineer, on 06.04.2018, he was meeting one of his relatives who offered financial help by way of a loan to meet expenses of his sister’s engagement, but he was arrested by the Officers of Anti Corruption Bureau at around 5.30 p.m. and he was informed that based on F.I.R vide No. 02/RCT-NLG/2018 dated 06.04.2018 ACB Police Station, Nalgonda Range, the ACB laid a trap on the complaint of his relative Udavath Rajesh, who is said to have stated that the petitioner demanded a bribe amount for clearing the pending payment to his father,.

2.1 It is further contended by the petitioner that the allegation against him is that, he demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.1.25 lakhs, is false. It is a matter of record that as on the date of the trap, from out of the total amounts of Rs.71.33 lakhs, being the amounts due to the father of the complainant, more than Rs.69.50 lakhs was already released and there was nothing to be done any more. Pursuant to the arrest of the petitioner, he was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f.07.04.2018 vide G.O.Rt.No.640 dt.30.04.2018 and the suspension was extended from time to time and vide G.O.Rt.No.271 dt.06.07.2019 the suspension was extended till further orders. Though the petitioner made several representation to the respondents, but in vain.

2.2 It is further contended by the petitioner that he was served with show cause notice by the 2nd respondent vide SCN No. RC/ENC/H2/18051123/2018 dt.08.04.2020 wherein he was informed that the 1st respondent had directed to terminate his services vide Memo No.3573/Vig.I/A1/2018-2, dt.19.03.2020 and explanation from the petitioner was called for as to why he should not be discharged from service in terms of Rule 17(a) (ii) and 10(e) of the Telangana State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as he is a direct recruit in the initial cadre and cannot be reverted, and the petitioner vide letter dt.11.05.2020 submitted his explanation and requested the respondents to drop the proposed action of discharging him from service.

2.3 It is further contended by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent vide proceeding No.RC/ENC/H2/18051123/2018 dt.05.09.2020 terminated the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

3. The respondents filed counter denying the material contention of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner joined duty on 06.06.2016 in IB Sub-Division Nalgonda of IB Division Nalgonda of Irrigation Circle, Nalgonda. Later, he was transferred to I.B. Sub-Division, Choutupal of I.B. Division, Bhongir, and reported to duty on 01.12.2016. On 09.04.2018, the Anti Corruption Bureau, Nalgonda Range, through a radio message informed that the petitioner while working in I.B. Section, Bhongir, was trapped on 07.04.2018 at 17:30 by the ACB authorities when he demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant. A case was registered

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top