HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.10746 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services Home appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandaus declaring the impugned Rc.No. R1/167/19/2019-21, HOO No. 325/2021, dated 8-9- 2021 issued by the 2nd respondent and its connected Rc.No. 898/A5/Major PR/2019-21, D.O.No. 1210/2021 dated 15-9-2021 issued by the 1st respondent and the orders issued by the 3rd respondent vide Proc.Rc.No. 219/T1/2022, dated 18-10-2022 as being unjust, illegal and disproportionate to the charge framed against the petitioner and consequently set-aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to duty with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other order…”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-

The petitioner was appointed as constable and promoted as A.S.I in 2018. On 26.01.2019 a charge memo Rc.No.898/A6/Major PR/2019 against the petitioner was issued with the charge that the petitioner had tampered with the Bhadratha Nomination form by changing the name of his wife from B.Koteswari to B.Sunitha, however the above said charge memo was cancelled on 11.09.2019.

It is further the case of the petitioner that 2nd respondent again issued a charge memo dated 24.10.2019 with the charges that the petitioner married another woman when his wife is alive and the petitioner tampered with the Bhadratha Nomination form by changing his wife name from B.Koteswari to B.Sunitha. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his explanation on 19.02.2020 stating that petitioner has performed his 2^nd marriage with the consent of his first wife and her father as the 1^st wife is issue-less, however, Petitioner was dismissed from service by the 2^nd respondent on the ground that the charges are held proved.

It the further the case of Petitioner that the petitioner made representation to Government to accord post facto permission for his second marriage with Smt. Suneetha, when his first wife was found unfit for procreation of children. The Government thereupon issued Memo. No. 1236(P)/Ser.II/A2/2021, dated 31.12.2021 requesting the 3rd respondent to examine the matter and furnish a detailed report along with O.E. records along with Proforma Particulars etc., to Government, for taking further necessary action in the matter. But shockingly 3^rd respondent rejected the above representation styling it as appeal thereby rejecting the petitioner’s right to seek pardon from the government. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD.

(A). The relevant portion of the representation of the petitioner, dated 18.11.2021 addressed to the State Government (Home Minister, Telangana State, Hyderabad) is extracted hereunder:-

“I humbly inform the Govt that this representation is not to be treated as an appeal under Rule 33 of TSC (CCA) Rules, 1991 against the penalty of Dismissal from service.

In this Representation, I am praying the Govt to accord post facto permission for my second marriage with Smt. Suneetha, when my first wife was found unfit for procreation of children. There is only administrative lapse on my part.

By relaxing the provisions, contained in Rule 25 of TCS (conduct) Rules 1964 by exercising their inherent powers conferred under Rule 31 of state and subordinate service Rules, 1996, my second marriage can be validated. By relaxation of provisions of Rule 25 of conduct Rules, the misconduct of second marriage can be obliterated. The penalty of Dismissal will lose its operative power automatically.

There is nó culpable mind for me to violate the Rule 25 of conduct Rules. Unde