I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.15954 OF 2023 Between:

Sri V.Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & Another … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 08.07.2025 THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes.

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

________________________________

MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.15954 OF 2023 % 08.07.2025 Between:

# Sri V.Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner And $ The State of Telangana & Another … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.V.Ramana ^ Counsel for Respondents : AGP for Services-I ? Cases Referred:

(i)(2009) 2 SCC 570 ii) (1995) 2 SCC 474 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.15954 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

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

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Rt.No. 108 EFS & T Dept, dt 11.08.2022 and Memo No. 907/FOR/III/A1/2019, dt 30/4/2023 imposing penalty of removal from services as illegal, arbitrary and violates Article 14, 16, 21 and 311(2) of Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 20 of TS CS & CCA Rules 1991 and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service with all continuity of service without any break with all consequential attendant benefits in the interests of justice and to pass …”

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 Junior Assistant in Kothagudem Forest Division and later, the said post was converted to the post of Forest Section Officer and subsequently, petitioner was promoted as Forest Range Officer in 2011 and worked as such from 2015 to 2018 in Kothagudem range of Guduru wild life division, Mahabubabad District. The petitioner was suspended on 25.01.2018 based on reports of District Forest Officer, Mahabubabad dated 20.01.2018, Forest Divisional Officer, WL, Guduru dated 18.01.2018 and District Forest Officer, Mahabubabad dated 25.01.2018.

It is the further the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent issued the Articles of Charge on 19.03.2018 with allegations of misappropriation of government money and temporary embezzlement of Rs.43,53,580/- and the petitioner submitted a reply to the said charge memo. However, before giving the reply the chief conservator of forests appointed an enquiry officer i.e., DFO, Mahabubabad, who is none other than the Forest Divisional Officer, WL, acting as in charge DFO, on whose report the above said charge memo was issued to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 12.09.2018 an enquiry date was fixed and the presenting enquiry officer himself acted as witness and gave evidence in the absence of the charged officer. Thereafter a notice enclosing the enquiry report was served on the petitioner to raise objections and in pursuance to the said notice the petitioner raised the objection that the petitioner opened a bank account in private bank not on petitioner’s name but on his designation as Forest Range officer only with the intention to get the high interest rate for the government but not to embezzle the money or to misappropriate the money. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority corresponded with the government, who is indeed an appellate authority and the government passed a non-speaking order dated 11.08.2022 whereby the petitioner was removed from the service, hence, the petitione