HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

********

WRIT PETITION NO.28219 OF 2025

Between :

P.Narsimhulu s/o. P.Kashaiah,

Aged about 37 years, occu: Junior Assistant,

R/o.H.No.3-78/E/209, Indrareddy Nagar,

Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

…. Petitioner

and

The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary,

Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.

…. Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 22.09.2025

HON’BNLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes

may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes

marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship wish to : Yes

see the fair copy of the Judgment ?

__________________________________

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J

* HON’BNLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO +WRIT PETITION NO.28219 OF 2025 % 22.09.2025 Between:

# P.Narsimhulu s/o. P.Kashaiah, Aged about 37 years, occu: Junior Assistant, R/o.H.No.3-78/E/209, Indrareddy Nagar, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

…. Petitioner and $ The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.

…. Respondents !Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. B.Shiva Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : Govt.Pleader for Law & Legislative Affairs for respondent No.1;

Mr. Naren Rudra, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

(1995) 6 SCC 749 ; (2008) 3 SCC 484; (2008) 7 SCC 580; (2011) 4 SCC 584; (2015) 2 SCC 610 (2020) 3 SCC 423; (2022) 13 SCC 329; (2023) 11 SCC 159; (2024) SCC OnLine Jhar 177 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO.28219 OF 2025 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao Heard Mr. B.Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner;

the leaned Government Pleader for Law & Legislative Affairs for respondent No.1, and Mr.Naren Rudra, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction by declaring the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2 imposing the punishment of censure against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust. The petitioner further prays for consequential reliefs, including extension of all attendant benefits and also consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant without reference to the impugned order dated 26.06.2025.

3. Before proceeding further, it would be more beneficial if we take into consideration the articles of charges leveled against the petitioner which reads thus:

“Article of Charge I:

That Sri. P.Narasimhulu, Junior Assistant, Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, filed civil suits vide OS No.649/2022 and OS No.390/2023, in the capacity of the plaintiff before the very same court where he is working as Bench Clerk, but did not inform the inception of the suits to the Presiding Officer on the same day. That being an employee of the same court, it is his prime duty to inform about filing of the said suits to the Presiding Officer. Instead, he did not reveal his identity to the court in the pleadings and thereby, mis-conducted himself as an Employee of the Judicial Ministerial Services.

The above act of the individual amounts to ‘misconduct’

and that he thereby contravened Rule 3 of T.S. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 and rendered himself liable for disciplinary proceedings under Rules 20 of T.S. Civil Servicec (CCA) Rules

1991.

Article of Charge II:

That Sri. P. Narasimhulu, Junior Assistant, being the plaintiff in the suits OS No.649/2022 and OS No.390/2023, did not reveal his identity as a court employee working in the court where he filed the suits at the time of filing the suit and concealed the fact deliberately by which he played fraud on the Court with malafide intention for wrongful g