The issuance of a Charge Memo by an unauthorized authority after undue delay is unsustainable, as negligible errors do not constitute misconduct.

ORDER :

Since the grievance of the petitioner in both these matters is inter se connected with each other, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order.

2) Heard Sri P.Suresh Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing Sri G.Raman Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 to 3, and Sri G.Narayana, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

3) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that an Article of Charge vide G.O.Rt.No.81, MA & UD (Vig.II) Department, dated 18.02.2016, was issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner alleging that while the petitioner was working on deputation as Forest Range Officer in the office of respondent No.4 during the period from 06.09.2008 to 03.12.2009 he has not put the date under his initial recorded in the Measurement Book at a few places during check measurement of four works out of many works, without jurisdiction and after a lapse of 8 years, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charge. However, without considering the said explanation, an enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in violation of Rule 20 of Telangana Civil Services (CCA) Rule, 1991 (in short ‘CCA Rules, 1991’) and submitted the Enquiry Report dated 05.03.2023 holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. But, so far, no final orders are passed, pursuant to the Enquiry Report. Learned senior counsel has contended that though the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, the respondents are not considering his case for promotion on the ground that departmental enquiry is still pending. Learned senior counsel has further contended that the very initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner is violative of Rule 2 of CCA Rules, 1991, inasmuch as Respondent No.2 is neither the Appointing Authority nor Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has also contended that in case of the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 3 are the appointing authorities. Therefore, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.81 dated 18.02.2023 lacks jurisdiction and therefore liable to be set aside.

Reliance has been placed on:

a) Union of India v. J.Ahmed , AIR 1979 SC 1022

b) Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi , (2007) 4 SCC 566

c) Order dated 17.04.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.29066 of 2024; and

d) J.Ramachandraiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh , (2012 SCC OnLine AP 730

4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that based on the Alert Note No.118 (C.No.l087/V&E/NR.2/11), dated 15.04.2014, respondent No.2 has issued an Article of Charge to the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.81, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, (Vig.II) Department, dated 18.02.2016, in respect of the error caused by the petitioner in not putting the date under the initial recorded in the measurement book during check measurement while working as Forest Range Officer, Director Urban Forestry, GHMC, Hyderabad, on deputation basis. Further, the petitioner himself has agreed that he has made negligible error in his affidavit. As such, the Article of Charge has been issued by the Government in tune with the Rules and Regulations. It is further submitted that the Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry, the Inquiry Report was sent by respondent No.4 vide endorsement dated 19.01.2024 to the PCCF (HoFF), Hyderabad, dated 13.03.2024, and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner on 10.04.2024. However, the petitioner has not submitted his written