IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary actions must align with established legal principles, particularly when underlying criminal proceedings are quashed.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to Memo No.1126219/53/DTA/VC/2021, dated 25.05.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent i.e. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Finance Department, State of Telangana and quash the same was arbitrary, illegal and without proper appreciation of facts and record and consequently set aside the Memo No. 1126219/53/DTA/ VC/2021, dated 25.05.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent in confirming the proceedings of removal No.G3/2230/2017 dated 18.08.2022 passed by the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Telangana at Hyderabad and pass…”

2. Heard Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after demise of the petitioner’s father on 10.06.2009, he was appointed as a Junior Accountant on compassionate grounds on 28.10.2010. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Senior Accountant on 01.09.2013. While so, he got married to one Smt. Neelima @ Sunitha in 2013. However, due to differences, they mutually agreed for divorce, which was granted by the Family Court, Secunderabad vide order dated 08.11.2014 in F.C.O.P.No.230 of 2014. However, two years after the divorce, his former wife filed a criminal case against the petitioner under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and other sections, which was registered as Crime No.281 of 2016. As a result of the complaint, the petitioner was sent to judicial remand on 28.09.2016, and subsequently, respondent No.3 placed him under suspension w.e.f., 29.09.2016 vide proceedings dated 05.10.2016. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued a charge memo vide proceedings No.A1/4647/2016 dated 14.02.2018, for which, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 16.03.2018 denying the said charges. However, without considering the same, respondent No.3 appointed an enquiry officer vide proceedings dated 21.05.2018. Thereafter, the enquiry officer conducted an enquiry and submitted his enquiry report on 08.08.2018 holding the charges II and III as not proved and gave certain findings regarding charge I. However, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings in respect of the charge that was regarding the proceedings in PRC.No.20 of 2017 in Crime No.281 of 2016, which was already quashed by this Court vide order dated 10.11.2020 in Crl.P.No.5312 of 2020.

4. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner on 18.07.2022 to submit his representation over the findings of the enquiry officer as well as on the disagreement of the disciplinary authority with regard to charge I. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his representation on 08.08.2022. Further, the findings and observations of the disciplinary authority with regard to charge III are misconceived and beyond the scope of notice dated 18.07.2022, wherein, there was no mention of disagreement by the disciplinary authority over the findings of the enquiry officer on charge No.3. However, without considering the true facts of the case, the disciplinary authority has issued proceedings dated 18.08.2022 imposing a punishment of Censure, and consequently, the suspension period from 29.09.2016 to 05.09.2017 was treated as not on duty, in terms of FR 54-B (7). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 17.10.2022, but the same was rejected without assigning any reasons, vide Memo No.1126219/53/DTA/VC/2021 dated 25.05.2023.

5. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 committed a serious irregularity in holding that the regular enquiry was concluded holding the charges as proved. However, the same is perverse as the Enquiry Officer, vide enquiry report dated 08.08.201