IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Writ Petition No.26121 of 2025

Date: 11.12.2025

Between:

Danday Venkateshwarlu

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep by its Principal Secretary (Law Department),

Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana and others.

…Respondents

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.M.Vijaya Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Ms.M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services – II and Mr.Vivek Jain, learned standing counsel for respondent

Nos.3 and 4. Perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order

annexed dated 30.06.2025. Vide the said order, respondent No.3 –

Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner had rejected two claims put forth by the petitioner. Firstly, the claim for enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50% to 75% in terms of FR 53 (1) (ii) (a) and secondly, the claim for rejection of suspension and reinstatement into service.

3. The Authority i.e., respondent No.3 has rejected both the above claims. So far as enhancement of subsistence allowance is concerned, the same was rejected in terms of the aforesaid FR 53 (1) (ii) (a). This, in the opinion of this Bench has been rightly rejected as FR itself specifically enumerates that the subsistence allowance for an employee cannot be raised from 50% to 75% in the event if the person is charged in the criminal cases on charges of corruption, mis-appropriation demand or acceptance of legal gratification. In the instant case, the petitioner is facing prosecution on the demand of illegal gratification. Therefore, there does not seem to be any scope of interference to the impugned order so far as rejection of enhancement of subsistence allowance is concerned.

4. However, as regards the revocation of suspension is concerned, the only ground for rejection of claim of revocation is pendency of criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner took this Bench through G.O.Ms.No.526 General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 19.08.2008 wherein in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 reads as under:

3. Accordingly, Government, hereby, direct that the employees who are under suspension for a period exceeding two years shall be reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary cases / criminal cases against them. However in exceptional cases, for example, where the charged Officers are not co-operating for completion of investigation / inquiry or when the inquiry/investigation could not be completed due to pendency of litigation, a Committee headed by the Secretary of the administrative Department, Headed of the Department concerned and an official from the Anti Corruption Bureau (where the cases are emanated from Anti Corruption Bureau investigation). Shall review the orders of suspension against the employees who are continued under suspension well before completion of two years of suspension and take a decision to continue such employees under suspension beyond two years, duly recording the reasons for such a decision.

4. All the Departments of Secretariat. Heads of Departments and District Collectors should follow the above instructions scrupulously and bring it to the notice of all the concerned for strict implementation of the above orders.”

5. The compliance in terms of said G.O.Ms.No.526 does not seem to have been followed by respondent No.3 in the course of passing the impugned order is concerned. The plain reading of the portion of G.O.Ms.No.526, already reproduced earlier, would definitely lead us to the only inference of a requirement by all the disciplinary authorities in ensuring that whether the order of suspension is in operation for quite some time. The Disciplinary Authority should periodically review the same and as per the G.O.Ms.No.526 it has to be done before two years of a person being placed under suspension.

6. In the instant case, now