Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Sri G.Venkateshwarlu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.19591 OF 2022 and Writ Petition No.41351 of 2022
Decided On : 29-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
TELANGANA STATE CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES : R.20
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, while serving as Deputy Collector, executed land mutation orders under compulsion to comply with Supreme Court rulings, yet faced disciplinary action citing procedural lapses despite prior judicial compliance. (Paras 4-5)
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated violated prior court orders and the principles of natural justice. (Para 13)
Findings of Court:
The court identified that the impugned orders were based on a prejudged determination and did not consider ongoing judicial directives, indicating a lack of fairness and openness. (Paras 14-17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that fair procedures must be followed, particularly in quasi-judicial proceedings, and interim relief was warranted given the failure to respect prior court orders. (Para 18)
Result: The Writ Petitions were allowed, setting aside the impugned disciplinary actions against the petitioner with the observer of allowing future lawful actions. (Final Paragraph)
For the Petitioner: Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned senior designated counsel representing Smt. P.Chandana, learned counsel.
For the Respondents: G.P. for Services-I
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ of mandamus to challenge arbitrary actions (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner followed court decrees for land mutation (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments presented by the petitioner and respondents (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's concerns over potential bias in proceedings (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. quasi-judicial authority must act fairly (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. final relief granted to the petitioner (Para 18) |
ORDER :
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned senior designated counsel representing Smt. Porika Chandana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer in W.P.No.19591 of 2022 as under:
“...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of “Writ of Mandamus” to call for records by ordering Rule Nisi in connection to initiating enquiry against the Petitioner by the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No. 3 by passing an Order dt 19.02.2020 in File No. A3/996/2020 by declaring their action as arbitrary, highhanded, discriminatory, ex-acie, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice, by giving colourable exercise to its statutory powers in dereliction of duty, and consequently may set-aside the same in the interest of justice and may pass...”
3. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer in W.P.No.41351 of 2022 as under:
“...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of “Writ of Mandamus” declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1 in passing an Order dt 04.11.2022 in G.O.Rt. No. 348 against the Petitioner herein for framing charges etc when the whole process against the Petitioner is already stayed as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently set-aside the Order dt 04.11.2022 in G.O.Rt No.348 while making it clear that an officer cannot be proceeded against when he is implementing the Orders of Courts and pass...”
The petitioner in W.P.No.19591 of 2022 and the petitioner in W.P.No.41351 of 2022 are the same.
4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of W.P.No.19591 of 2022 is as under:
The petitioner, while acting strictly in accordance with the decrees of competent civil courts that had affirmed title in favour of private parties and whose findings had attained finality up to the Supreme Court, passed mutation orders in respect of certain lands. The petitioner was himself a party to the underlying civil suits, and non-compliance with the court decrees would have exposed petitioner to contempt proceedings, as mutation entries are fiscal in nature, do not confer title, and do not prevent the Government from initiating independent proceedings under the Agricultural Ceiling Act.
It is further the case of the petitioner that despite being aware of these facts and relevant judicial pronouncements, Respondent No. 3 issued disciplinary enquiry order against the petitioner on 19.02.2020, alleging failure to verify revenue records, improper land classification, prior handover to APIIC, and lack of prior permission from district authorities. As the enquiry had not yet commenced and no effective alternative remedy was available, the petitioner approached this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to call for records to declare the enquiry order illegal and unconstitutional, and set it aside, along with interim relief suspending the enquiry to prevent irreparable harm and abuse of process.
5. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of present W.P.No.41351 of 2022 is as under:
The petitioner was responsible for the revenue administration of land in Sy.No.613, Nadergul Village, Ranga Reddy District, which was subject to prolonged civil litigation. The Supreme Court, on 09.10.2015, confirmed ownership in
