Point of Law: Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, bift is directed against the “decision-making process The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the court-martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the court-martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 4th respondent-Superintending Engineer, I & CADD, Warangal Urban District, vide proceedings dt. 16-09-2019 and quash the same by declaring that the said proceedings were issued with a prejudged mind to remove the petitioner from service as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the procedure contemplated under T.S. Civil Service (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for brevity ‘the Rules, 1991) and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri A.Anil Kumar, Writ Petitioner/Party-in-Person and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents and in the instant case, Sri N.Praveen Reddy, learned counsel, is appointed as Amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the petitioner.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that initially he was appointed as an Assistant (Library) in District Training Centre, Warangal, pursuant to the Notification and the District Collector is the Chairman of the District Training Centre under the Nodal Agency of Human Resources Department. The petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay initially on 08-11-2000. After certain considerable length of service, the petitioner’s post was re-designated as Steno Typist-cum-Computer Operator on 21-11-2006. While the petitioner was discharging his duties in the District Training Centre, the District Training Centre was not having adequate budget to continue its programmes during 2007. Then the District Collector vide proceedings dt.30-03-2007 has recommended for the petitioner’s absorption as Steno Typist-cum-Computer Operator in the Irrigation Department. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary to the Irrigation Department on 24-05-2007 requesting to absorb him in the Irrigation Department. The 4th respondent vide proceedings dt.21-06-2007 has informed the District Collector that there is a clear vacancy of Typist in the Circle Office, Warangal and sought consent from the District Collector to utilize the services of the petitioner in the vacant Typist post. In response to the 4th respondent’s letter dt.21-06-2007, the District Collector has given his consent vide proceedings dt.27-06-2007 for absorption of the petitioner as a Typist in the Irrigation Department.

4. Thereafter, the 4th respondent vide proceedings dt.30-06-2007 has absorbed the petitioner as Typist in the vacant post. In pursuance to the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner is appointed as Typist in the Irrigation Department on 02-07-2007. The Pay and Accounts Officer has raised objection vide proceedings dt.18-08-2007 for paying salaries to the petitioner. The 4th respondent vide orders dt.28-09-2007 has clarified in response to the objection raised by the Pay and Accounts Officer. Then the Pay and Accounts Officer having himself got satisfied with the clarification given by the 4th respondent has started paying salaries to the petitioner. The petitioner has further contended that while he was discharging as Typist in the Irrigation Department, one Sri A.Yadgiri has given a complaint about petitioner’s appointment. The 4th respondent had taken a stand that the appointment of petitioner is done as per the Rules and submitted a report to the 2nd respondent on 16-04-2008 on the said complaint and the probation of the petitioner was also declared vide proceedings dt. 13-08-2010 with effect from 01-07-2009. The petitioner has further contended that he was also granted Special Grade Promotion Scale vide proceedings dt.24-08-2013 with effect from 02-07-2013. The petitioner has been discharging his duties to the best satisfaction of his superiors and everyone concerned.

5. The petitioner has further contended that while he was working, the respondents have issued a memo dt. 18-03-2017 to remove the petitioner from servi