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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 923

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.
B.Mallesham – Appellant 
Versus 
State of Telangana – Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 16279 of 2024
Decided On : 09-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU
For the Respondent: GP FOR SERVICES II

Procedural fairness must be upheld in disciplinary inquiries; the absence of examination of witnesses in the presence of the accused violates principles of natural justice, rendering disciplinary actions invalid.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 20 - Dismissal from service - The petitioner dismissed under proceedings dated 04.02.2024 for misappropriation allegations - Lack of adherence to procedural requirements in the enquiry denied the petitioner the right to defend himself, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 7, 11, 12, 14)

(B) Procedural Fairness - The importance of following prescribed procedures in disciplinary proceedings is critical, notably the presence of the accused during witness examinations is required for a fair hearing. (Paras 7, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged his dismissal, claiming that the enquiry conducted against him was flawed, as witnesses were not examined in his presence, which denied him the opportunity to defend against charges of misappropriation totaling Rs.5,73,500/-. (Paras 1, 6, 12)

Findings of Court:
The dismissal was set aside due to the failure of authorities to adhere to procedural norms, particularly concerning the petitioner's right to a fair enquiry where he can confront evidence against him. (Paras 7, 15)

Issues: Whether the enquiry was conducted fairly and in accordance with established rules, and whether the dismissal was justified given the circumstances. (Paras 7, 12, 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the failure to conduct the enquiry in compliance with Rule 20 undermined the validity of the dismissal and emphasized that procedural fairness is fundamental in disciplinary actions. (Paras 7, 12, 14)

Result: The impugned proceedings were set aside, and the authority was directed to reconsider and impose a lesser penalty. (Paras 15)

Table of Content
1. illegality and arbitrariness in dismissal of service. (Para 1 , 3)
2. petitioner's arguments against dismissal. (Para 4 , 6)
3. procedural flaws in the enquiry. (Para 7 , 11)
4. major penalties must follow proper procedure. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. excessive punishment without proven charges. (Para 12 , 14)
6. directives for lesser punishment than dismissal. (Para 15)

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the petitioner from service vide Proceedings No.4892/CPR&RE/E3/2017, dated 04.02.2024 as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The petitioner was selected by the Public Service Commission and was appointed as MPDO on16.10.1999 and he has been discharging his duties without any complaint. He worked as MPDO at Peddapally, Karimnagar District, during the period from 23.09.2013 to 25.02.2014 and again from 01.07.2014 to 22.12.2016. While so, on 30.05.2016, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, issued notice to that petitioner alleging that he has not remitted an amount of Rs.7,66,000/- to the concerned account. The said amount was undisbursed Aasara Pension, which was supposed to be distributed/disbursed by the Panchayat Secretaries of different villages. The petitioner has not submitted his explanation to the said notice. The undisbursed Aasara Pension was returned to or paid back in the office of MPDO by the concerned Panchayat Secretaries. The amount appears to have been handed over to the Junior Assistant of Office of MPDO, Peddapally. At that point of time, the Junior Assistant of the office of MPDO had received an amount of Rs.5,16,000/- and Rs.2,46,500/-.

(b) The Junior Assistant by name Sri Hari Krishna Prasad appears to have made an application to the higher officials stating that he had handed over the said amount to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not remit the amount to the concerned account. According to the said Sri Hari Krishna, an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- was remitted to SNA account and an amount of Rs.5,73,500/- is still lying with the petitioner and he did not remit the said amount. The allegation made by the said Junior Assistant that he handed over the said amount to the petitioner is false.

(c) One Sri P.Ashok Kumar, Revenue Divisional Officer was appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 13.05.2016 and he has given notices to the petitioner on 16.07.2016, 28.09.2016 and 05.10.2015 fixing the dates of enquiry on18.07.2016, 04.10.2016 and 10.10.2016. The petitioner appeared before the said Enquiry officer on the said dates. But, the Enquiry Officer was busy and he did not conduct any enquiry in the presence of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer collected the statements of Sri S.Hari Krishna Prasad and Panchayat Secretaries behind the back of the petitioner and submitted a report vide reference No.A/2741/2016, dated 06.09.2017 stating that the allegation levelled against the petitioner was proved. The Commissioner Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment directed the Chief Executive Officer to prepare draft articles of charge.

(d) The 2nd respondent issued Charge Memo to the petitioner on 20.03.2018 framing three articles of charges against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.12.2019 to the said Charge Memo. The 2nd respondent had appointed the CEO, ZPP, Karimnagar, as the Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 21.05.2018 i.e., even before the receipt of the explanation from the petitioner. The 2nd respondent also appointed the District Panchayat Officer as the presenting officer. The CEO fixed the dates of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer called several persons to her office and collected their statements

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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