Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 784
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
K.Maheshwar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana & others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.29581 of 2021
Decided On : 21-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri V.Ravichandran
For the Respondent: AGP for Revenue
Disciplinary proceedings prolonged without resolution can be deemed arbitrary, violating principles of fairness and justice, thereby affecting employee promotions.
Headnote:(A) G.O. Ms. No. 679 dated 01-11-2008; TSCS (CC and A) Rules, 1991; (1995) 2 SCC 570 - Disciplinary proceedings - Denial of promotion based on pending disciplinary actions deemed arbitrary and illegal due to unexplained delays - Respondents ordered to reconsider promotion claim. (Paras 3, 11, 12)
(B) Delays in disciplinary proceedings - Courts have a duty to quash proceedings due to significant delays, ensuring fairness and justice to government employees. (Paras 10, 11)
(C) Interim orders - Directives for promotion considered without reference to charges. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the delay in disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2011, asserting it unlawfully impeded his promotion to Senior Assistant. The petitioner alleged that while he faced delays, juniors received promotions.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the continuation of disciplinary proceedings after such delay was unjust and ordered promotion consideration for the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the continuation of disciplinary proceedings amidst significant delay is justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings must not cause undue hardship to employees, especially when delay questions the fairness of the process—promotion should be reviewed independent of pending charges.
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims improper continuation of disciplinary proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observations on delay in disciplinary inquiries. (Para 4 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's emphasis on undue delay in disciplinary proceedings. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 4. comparison with promotions of juniors and relevance of interim orders. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. writ petition allowed; disciplinary proceedings set aside. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Heard Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue appearing on behalf of respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner pursuant to Charge Memo No. A3/1138/2007 dated 27-01-2011 issued by the 3rd Respondent and thereby denying promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by un-explained laches and delay, contrary to the time limit stipulated for completion of enquiries in G.O. Ms. No. 679 dated 01- 11-2008 and provisions of Rule 20 of TSCS (CC and A) Rules, 1991 and to the law laid down in (1995) 2 SCC 570 and W.P.No.11294 of 2013 and batch dated 25-06- 2013 and further be pleased to hold that the Petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered and be promoted as Senior Assistant with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and to pass”.
3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the Respondents are continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner pursuant to Charge Memo No. A3/1138/2007 dated 27.01.2011 issued by the 3rd Respondent and thereby denying promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by un-explained laches and delay, contrary to the time limit stipulated for completion of enquiries in G.O. Ms. No. 679, dated 01.11.2008 and provisions of Rule 20 of TSCS (CC and A) Rules, 1991 and also the law laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 and the view of this Court in W.P.No.11294 of 2013 and batch dated 25.06.2013 Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.
PERUSED THE RECORD.
4. The interim orders of this Court, dated 22.11.2021 passed in I .A.No.01 of 2021 in W.P.No.29581 of 2021 is extracted hereunder:-
“ The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, without reference to the Charge Memo issued on 27.01.2011 in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570 ” .
5. The judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570” and in particular para No.12 is extracted hereunder:-
13. Applying the balancing process, we are of the opinion that the quashing of charges and of the order appointing en- quiry officer was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately. Ibis direction is made in the particular facts and circumstances of the case though we are aware that the Rules and practice normally followed in such cases may be different. The promotion so made, if any, pending the enquiry shall, however, be subje
