The disciplinary authority must afford reasonable opportunities and consider all submissions before imposing penalties; failure to do so violates natural justice principles.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, wherein the following prayer is made:

“…..to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the impugned proceedings NO.3518/Admn/A2/2019, dated 27.01.2020 is in violation to the orders dated 06.01.2020 of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad in W.P.No.241 of 2020, in violation of Rule 20 of TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and not giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit his further defence statement to Inquiry Officer’s report communicated to the petitioner in Memo No.3518/Admn/A2/2019, dated 27.12.2019 and not sustainable under law. Consequently set aside the impugned proceedings No.3518/Admn/A2/2019 dated 27.01.2020 and to pass such other order or orders….” [reproduced verbatim]

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Siripuram Keshava, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Syed Mushtaq Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I representing the respondents and perused the record.

3. The facts that lead to filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner was selected as Statistician by the then Andhra Pradesh State Public Service Commission in the year 1987. He appointed as Assistant Statistical Officer in the office of the Mandal Revenue Office, Peddakotapally Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District on 01.02.1989. The date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as 17.12.1962 in his service register. While so, Respondent No.2 issued a charge memo, dated 31.07.2019 to the petitioner alleging discrepancies in recording of his date of birth in the service book. Two articles of charges was framed against the petitioner. The gist of charge in Article No.1 is that the petitioner has furnished different dates of birth to different authorities at different points of time with a malafide intention of deceiving the authorities of the Government, so as to continue in the Government service beyond the stipulated age of superannuation. The gist of charge in Article No.2 is that the petitioner failed to comply with the orders of superior authorities when he was directed to submit relevant original documents in support of his actual date of birth, particularly, his original Secondary School Certificate (SSC), even after providing reasonable opportunity. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 13.08.2019 to Respondent No.1 requesting to provide him the attested copies of some documents. The Respondent No.2, vide memo, dated 16.08.2019, provided the petitioner with some documents and further informed him that the documents which are found to be relevant are only supplied as per Rule 20(5)(e) of Telangana State Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1991 (the rules “for brevity”) and directed the petitioner to submit his defence statement within four days. Thereafter the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 19.08.2019 to Respondent No.2 requesting to supply him the relevant documents enabling him to submit his defence statement more perfectly. However, Respondent No.2 issued proceedings No.3518/Admn/A2/2019, dated 22.08.2019 appointing an Inquiring Officer, requesting him to commence the enquiry forthwith and submit a report within twenty days. Alleging that without considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 19.08.2019, the respondent No.2 had appointed the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18527 of 2019 before this Court. This Court, vide order, dated 27.08.2019, disposed of the writ petition grati