Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15399
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MRS SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Sri T. Surender Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana, Hyderabad – Respondent
Writ Petition No.7116 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Rangarajula Rajasekhar Rao
For the Respondents: learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Government Pleader for Services-I
Disciplinary authorities must provide reasoned decisions in penalties imposed, particularly when findings of enquiry officers favor the charged officer.
Headnote:(A) Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 9(vi) - Disciplinary Proceedings - Writ petition challenging orders of penalty of withholding one annual grade increment - Enquiry report finding no negligence or collusion against the charged officer - Disciplinary authority's decision lacked justification or reasoning - Court emphasized that orders affecting civil rights must be reasoned - Writ petition allowed and impugned orders set aside. (Paras 11, 12, 15)
(B) Civil Consequences - The enforcement of disciplinary measures must observe the principles of natural justice, implying the necessity for well-reasoned decisions by the authority imposing penalties, especially where the accused party has faced allegations deemed not proven by enquiry proceedings. (Paras 9, 10)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner sought a writ to challenge disciplinary proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. key charges against the petitioner found not proved by the enquiry. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondents' arguments focused on procedural adherence. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court noted lack of reasoning in disciplinary authority's decision. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. writ petition is allowed, and the impugned orders are set aside. (Para 15) |
ORDER:
Heard Sri Rangarajula Rajasekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I , appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
“...to issue a Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, to declare the impugned proceedings of the 1st Respondent bearing No.A1/448/2017, dated 28/12/2020 and consequential order of the 2nd Respondent in appeal bearing procgs.No.VS.III(2)/46/2021, dated 18/12/2021 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and void being contrary to the CCA Rules and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion as Tahsildar with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds in the year 1998 and was promoted to Senior Assistant in the year 2004 and was also promoted to Naib Deputy Tahsildar in the year 2013. The petitioner passed all departmental tests required for Tahsildar promotion. The petitioner's name was included in the 2015- 2016 panel for Tahsildar promotion. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 2017 due to allegations of involvement in rice diversion. Despite being reinstated, the petitioner faced disciplinary proceedings vide No.A1/448/2017 dated 28.12.2020 with a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment. In pursuance to the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.2, however, the same was rejected vide Procs.No.VS.III(2)/46/2021 dated 18.12.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
PERUSED THE RECORD:
4. The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.1 vide Proc.No.A1/ 448/ 2017, dated 28.12.2020 addressed to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder:
“In view of the above facts and circumstances I have not found any negligence in discharge of his legitimate duties and also not found any thing about collusion w ith the Stage. I I contractor. Hence, the charge is held not proved.
There is no conclusive evidence to prove that the T. Surendar Reddy, Naib Tahsildar (CS) has colluded w ith Stage.I I Contractor and K. Venkatram w ith a malafide intention to gain money for his personal benefit. I n view of the above the charge held is not proved.
After careful examination, the findings of the enquiry officer with reference to the explanation submitted by the charged officer, it is noticed that, the enquiry has not touched the depth gross route of the illegal storage of PDS rice in un-authorized point and not ceased out the responsibility of the charged officer. Hence, the Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose a penalty with holding (01) Annual Grade Increment of pay with cumulative effect against the charged officer.
Show -cause notice has been issued for calling the explanation of the charged officer, by communicating the enquiry report and intimation regarding the proposed punishment w ith holding of annual grade increment w ith cumulative effect vide reference 10th read above. The Charged Officer has submitted his explanation and requested to drop the further action vide reference 11th read above.
In view of the above, in exercise of the powe
