1. An order imposing a pension cut on a retired government servant for alleged misconduct during service challenged on grounds of procedural illegality and lack of proper inquiry. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 2252
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
J. Shiva Shankar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5179 of 2021
Decided On : 09-04-2025
Important Points
Disciplinary proceedings are vitiated if mandatory inquiry procedures and principles of natural justice are bypassed. Furthermore, departmental proceedings are generally impermissible for the discharge of quasi-judicial functions where statutory routes of appeal are available to the aggrieved party.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.21
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.20
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.20
Headnote
(A) Administrative Law — Service Law — Disciplinary Proceedings — Pension — Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 — Rules 10(a) to 11(b) — Constitution of India — Articles 14, 16 & 21 — Principles of Natural Justice — Failure to follow mandatory inquiry procedure where no witnesses or the charged officer were examined, and punishment was imposed after more than a decade of the charge memo's issuance — Such proceedings are illegal, arbitrary, and vitiated. (Paras 15, 18)
(B) Quasi-judicial duties — Departmental proceedings — It is well settled that no departmental proceedings can be initiated in respect of the discharge of quasi-judicial duties, especially when there exists a provision for the aggrieved party to challenge the said orders in appeal. (Para 17)
(C) Prejudging — Issuance of a show cause notice indicating a provisional decision to impose punishment before conducting an inquiry signifies prejudging the issue and violates the principles of natural justice. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
A retired officer was issued a charge memo in 2010 relating to allegations from 2008 regarding the discharge of duties as a quasi-judicial authority, specifically involving the passing of orders under land regulations. More than ten years after the charge memo, a penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of three years was imposed. The officer challenged this order, asserting that no proper inquiry was conducted, no witnesses were examined, and the mandatory procedure prescribed under the service rules was ignored.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondents did not deny the specific averments that no proper inquiry was conducted. It was found that the inquiry failed to adhere to the mandatory procedures for recording evidence and examining witnesses as laid down in the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. Additionally, the court noted that the departmental action was directed at quasi-judicial functions and that the official had been prejudged by the issuance of a provisional punishment decision in the show cause notice.
Issues: Whether the imposition of a pension cut after a decade is sustainable when the mandatory inquiry procedures under the service rules were bypassed and whether departmental proceedings can be initiated for decisions taken in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary inquiry is vitiated if the mandatory procedure for examining witnesses and recording evidence is not followed. Furthermore, departmental proceedings are generally not the appropriate remedy for challenging the discharge of quasi-judicial functions when a statutory appeal mechanism exists.
Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned proceedings imposing a 10% cut in pension set aside. Respondents directed to consider the request for notional promotion and fixation of pensionary benefits.
(B) Quasi-judicial duties — Departmental proceedings — It is well settled that no departmental proceedings can be initiated in respect of the discharge of quasi-judicial duties, especially when there exists a provision for the aggrieved party to challenge the said orders in appeal. (Para 17)
(C) Prejudging — Issuance of a show cause notice indicating a provisional decision to impose punishment before conducting an inquiry signifies prejudging the issue and violates the principles of natural justice. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
A retired officer was issued a charge memo in 2010 relating to allegations from 2008 regarding the discharge of duties as a quasi-judicial authority, specifically involving the passing of orders under land regulations. More than ten years after the charge memo, a penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of three years was imposed. The officer challenged this order, asserting that no proper inquiry was conducted, no witnesses were examined, and the mandatory procedure prescribed under the service rules was ignored.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the respondents did not deny the specific averments that no proper inquiry was conducted. It was found that the inquiry failed to adhere to the mandatory procedures for recording evidence and examining witnesses as laid down in the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. Additionally, the court noted that the departmental action was directed at quasi-judicial functions and that the official had been prejudged by the issuance of a provisional punishment decision in the show cause notice.
Issues: Whether the imposition of a pension cut after a decade is sustainable when the mandatory inquiry procedures under the service rules were bypassed and whether departmental proceedings can be initiated for decisions taken in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary inquiry is vitiated if the mandatory procedure for examining witnesses and recording evidence is not followed. Furthermore, departmental proceedings are generally not the appropriate remedy for challenging the discharge of quasi-judicial functions when a statutory appeal mechanism exists.
Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned proceedings imposing a 10% cut in pension set aside. Respondents directed to consider the request for notional promotion and fixation of pensionary benefits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Gopal Rao
For the Appellant : S. Gopal Rao
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner asserts procedural violation of inquiry rules and principles of natural justice, while respondents maintain the petitioner's long absence justifies denial of relief. (Para 6 , 11 , 12 )
3. The court found the disciplinary inquiry vitiated by the failure to examine witnesses, provide reasonable opportunity, and the premature prejudgment of the penalty, violating established rules. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 )
4. Departmental inquiries against quasi-judicial officers for orders passed in such capacity are impermissible, and penalties imposed without adhering to mandatory statutory inquiry procedures are legally invalid. (Para 17 , 18 )
5. The impugned penalty order is set aside, with directions to the authorities to re-examine the service and pensionary benefits fixation in accordance with the law. (Para 19 )
6. Can disciplinary proceedings be initiated against a government servant for discharge of quasi-judicial duties?
No, departmental proceedings are impermissible for actions taken in a quasi-judicial capacity when statutory avenues like appeals are available to challenge those orders. (Para 17 )
7. What is the legal consequence of failing to follow the mandatory inquiry procedure prescribed under service rules?
Failure to follow the prescribed inquiry procedure, such as failing to examine witnesses or provide the charged officer a reasonable opportunity for defense, entirely vitiates the disciplinary inquiry and the resulting penalty. (Para 15 , 18 )
8. Does prejudging a disciplinary penalty in a show cause notice invalidate the final order?
Yes, issuing a show cause notice that indicates a fixed, final penalty before conducting an inquiry demonstrates that the authority has prejudged the issue, rendering the proceedings arbitrary and invalid. (Para 16 )
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri S.Gopal Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:
“…to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing G.O.Rt.No.38, Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department, dt.1-2- 2021, imposing a penalty of 10% cut-in-pension for a period of 3 years against the petitioner and set aside the same, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to accord notional promotion in the category of Deputy Collector and Special Grade Deputy Collector with effect from a due date and further fix his pensionary benefits based on such notional promotion by applying pay scales as revised from time to time by regulating various spells of period as on duty by passing orders by the 1st respondent on the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing CCLA's Lr.No.Ser.III(1)/314/2018, dt. 29-02-2020 and direct the respondents to release the entire pensionary benefits including DCRG, Commutation etc., with interest, as otherwise the petitioner will be put to heavy and irreparable loss.”
3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Probationary Deputy Tahsildar through APPSC in 1985 and was promoted as Tahsildar in 1996. Though eligible for promotion to Deputy Collector in 1998–99, the petitioner’s case was deferred due to a pending disciplinary case, and the petitioner’s junior, Sri K. Madhusudhan, was promoted instead. Subsequently, punishment of one annual grade increment stoppage with cumulative effect was imposed on 27.08.2002 but was later set aside on 22.10.2007. In 2010, baseless allegations from 2008 led to a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.700 Revenue (Vigilance –III) Department dated 12.05.2010, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the allegations on 12.08.2010. Despite retiring on 31.03.2013, the petitioner’s provisional pension was delayed until 2018 and released only after filing a contempt case with the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner was also falsely implicated in SC/ST Sessions Case No.18 of 2003 and was acquitted on 23.09.2005. Subsequently, G.O.Rt.No.38 Revenue (Vigilance –I) Department dated 01.02.2021 was issued to the petitioner imposing penalty of 10% cut in pension for three years. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
PERUSED THE RECORD:
4. This Court, on 24.03.2021, passed interim order in favour of the petitioner observing as under:
“In view of the same, the 1st respondent-State of Telangana is directed to release 90% of the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner within a reasonable period of time.
Post the Writ Petition for final hearing immediately after summer vacation 2021.”
5. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the respondent No.1 bearing G.O.Rt.No.38 Revenue (Vigilance –I ) Department dated 01.02.2021 is extracted hereunder:
“It has been brought to the notice of the Government through the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Hyderabad that Charged Officer Sri J.Shiva Shankar, former Special Deputy Collector (TW), Bhadrachalam (now retired) while functioning as Spl.DC (TW), Bhadrachalam has committed irregularities in several cases ignoring the LTR Regulations and without following due procedure vide reference 1 read above. Accordingly Articles of charges have been framed against him for violation of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1991 calling for his explanation vide reference 2nd read above.
In the reference 3rd read above, the charged officer has submitted his written statement of defence. Not convincing with the explanation of the Charged officer, it has been ordered for conducting regular inquiry vide reference 4th read above. In the reference
