Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
PULLA KARTHIK
B.Amrutha – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges a belated charge memo concerning misconduct. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondents argue the charge relates to missing service records. (Para 6) |
| 3. court acknowledges dual reliefs of challenging charge and seeking promotion. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. judicial review scope limits interference into charge memos. (Para 10) |
| 5. court directs promotion consideration despite charge memo pending. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
2. Heard Sri M.R. Tagore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. It is submitted that the aforesaid allegations have arisen out of the incidents allegedly occurred almost (18) years ago, but the charge memo has been issued against the petitioner belatedly. Despite the same, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation, on 17.01.2025, denying the charge. It is also submitted that the allegation leveled against the petitioner is wholly false and baseless. The petitioner, while working as Senior Assistant, was transferred and posted at the office of the DM
Delay in issuing a Charge Memo does not invalidate serious charges; promotion consideration cannot be blocked by ongoing disciplinary actions.
![K. Anadhajothi VS District of Medical Education [FAC], Chennai - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2374](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_1.png)
The charge memo must contain specific charges and be issued in accordance with the relevant rules, and promotions should not be denied based on stage-managed allegations after the crucial promotion d....
The withdrawal of a charge memo does not necessarily nullify the proceedings, and pendency of disciplinary proceedings can be a valid reason for denying promotion.
Vagueness of charge memo, delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, impermissibility of piecemeal enquiry
The court upheld that an employee does not acquire a right to promotion while facing grave disciplinary charges, allowing administrative discretion in such matters.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
