SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 38113

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Pulla Karthik, J
Ramasahayam Venkat Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No.18605 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Surender Rao, C. Raja Sekhar Reddy
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services-I

An order of suspension of a public servant pending disciplinary proceedings is an administrative measure that should not be interfered with by Courts under Article 226 unless it is shown to be mala fide or grossly violative of statutory provisions, especially when involving grave allegations of misconduct.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - R. 20 - Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Suspension order - Judicial review - Interference with suspension - Scope of - Held, suspension is an administrative measure pending inquiry and courts should not interfere unless order is vitiated by mala fides or gross violation of statutory provisions. (Paras 9, 11)

(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Expeditious conclusion - High Court directed that as the petitioner is aged 60 and on the verge of retirement, the disciplinary proceedings initiated by Charge Memo dated 06.08.2025 should be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Registrar, was placed under suspension following allegations of fraudulent registration of a property despite existing prohibition entries. Subsequently, a charge memo was issued against him. The petitioner challenged the suspension, citing his advanced age and impending retirement, while the respondents maintained that the suspension was necessary due to the gravity of the misconduct and the failure of the petitioner to adhere to statutory registration protocols.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that there was no basis to interfere with the suspension order as it was not demonstrating any mala fides or procedural deficiency. However, considering the petitioner's near-retirement status, the Court directed the disciplinary authority to expedite the proceedings.

Issues: Whether the order of suspension of the public servant was arbitrary or illegal, and whether the Court should interfere with such administrative action under Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of suspension is an interim measure to facilitate fair inquiry. Courts must refrain from judicial intervention unless the order is shown to be mala fide or lacking any prima facie evidence, and the authorities must act expeditiously in cases involving near-retirement employees.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges suspension for alleged fraudulent property registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. respondents justify suspension due to grave misconduct and failure to verify records. (Para 5 , 6)
3. courts generally do not interfere with administrative suspension absent mala fides. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings ordered due to petitioner's impending retirement. (Para 13 , 14)

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare and set aside the impugned proceedings of respondent No.2 vide No.G/709/2025 dated 11.06.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and without power, and consequently, to direct the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service.

2. Heard Sri M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri C. Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Sub-Registrar, Sanjeevreddy Nagar, a complaint was lodged against him by one Mr. C.A. Vidya Sagar, Secretary, A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society, alleging fraudulent registration of Sale Deed bearing document No.1077/2025 on 04.04.2025, in respect of the property bearing H.No.6-3-566, Mehar Manzil, Somajiguda, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. Pursuant to the said complaint, an enquiry was ordered by respondent No.2 vide Memo dated 29.05.2025, and upon conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, respondent No.3 concluded that the petitioner had failed to properly scrutinize the documents before registration, without taking serious note of two unregistered HIBA Transactions for the property already transacted under two Fasli sale deeds, disregarded the wrong PTIN with complaisance society name, and also failed to acknowledge the prohibited entry of the property involved in the transaction, and held that the petitioner had shown a lack of integrity and devotion in discharging his duties. However, without actually verifying the facts, respondent No.2 has arbitrarily placed the petitioner under suspension vide impugned proceedings dated 11.06.2025.

4. It is further submitted that the main allegation against the petitioner is that he had accepted the registration of the property, against which, a prohibition entry was recorded, at the request of the CID Police. However, as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.28643, 28776 and 28799 of 2021 dated 13.12.2021, the police authorities are not competent to request for the inclusion of immovable properties in the list of prohibited properties. It is also submitted that the deletion of prohibition entry could not be carried out, due to technical issues only, and the same was also reported to the District Registrar, Hyderabad (South), and the said deletion is currently under process. Therefore, the respondents ought not to have placed the petitioner under suspension on the said allegation. It is further submitted that there is no mistake or procedural lapse on the part of the petitioner in registering the property vide Document No.1077/2025 dated 04.04.2005, and no loss is caused to the Government, as the said property is not classified as Government Land. Moreover, the Government derived revenue through the Stamp Duty paid. Therefore, there is no basis for placing the petitioner under suspension. It is also submitted that the petitioner is presently aged about (60) years and on the verge of his retirement from service. As such, the impugned suspension would adversely affect the petitioner's pension and terminal benefits. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel prays this Court to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned suspension order dated 11.06.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that grave irregularitie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top