THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK and

COMMON ORDER:

Since the lis in these cases in inter-connected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. W.P.No.4094 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to call for the records pertaining to impugned proceedings dated 02.01.2024 issued by the 1st respondent, proceedings dated 10.01.2024 issued by the 3^rd respondent and proceedings dated 11.01.2024 issued by the 4^th respondent and set them aside as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, totally non-speaking and amounts to non-application of mind, predetermined mind and contrary to record, unconstitutional and in violation of Rule 20 of CCA Rules and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service w.e.f.

11.01.2024 and pass…”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent Department as a Shroff, which is a district cadre post, on 29.06.2012, and her probation was duly declared w.e.f., 30.06.2014, vide proceedings dated 04.06.2015. While so, respondent No.4 placed her and two others, viz., Mrs. K. Anusha, Junior Assistant, and Mr. T. Naresh, Joint Sub Registrar-I, Karimnagar, under suspension vide proceedings dated 28.03.2016, on the allegation of certain discrepancies in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Registrar Office (OB), Karimnagar. Subsequently, respondent No.3 issued a charge memo dated 29.07.2016, framing five charges against the petitioner, and the same was served on the petitioner on 06.08.2016, but no material was furnished to her along with the said charge memo. As such, material was sought by the petitioner vide letter dated 18.08.2016, which was furnished to her on 22.10.2016. However, it was contended that even before all this, on the very same day of issuance of charge memo, i.e., 29.07.2016, the District Registrar (Market Value and Audit) was already appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, which goes to show that the respondents were predetermined to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. As such, the entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated on the ground of prejudicial and predetermined mind.

5. It was further submitted that the entire purpose of issuing a charge memo seeking explanation, is to enable the charged officer to submit his/her explanation so that a decision could be taken, whether to proceed with the enquiry or not. However, in the case of the petitioner, the very appointment of enquiry officer, while simultaneously issuing the charge memo, would mean that the right to defend her case and get it closed at the threshold itself is taken away. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are unsustainable in the eye of law.

6. It was further submitted that the enquiry officer conducted a common enquiry against the petitioner and the aforesaid two individuals, and the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation to the enquiry officer on 24.01.2017. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 31.01.2017, holding all charges against the petitioner as not proved, while holding all charges against Mrs. K. Anusha, Junior Assistant, as proved and only two out of the six charges against Mr. T. Naresh, Joint Sub Registrar-I, as proved. However, the said enquiry report was kept in cold storage for about two years, until it was finally furnished to the petitioner and the other two individuals vide proceedings dated 04.10.2018, and the petitioner submitted her written statement to the enquiry report vide letter dated 02.11.2018. Thereafter, the matter has again been kept in cold storage for five years, after which, the Government issued the Memo dated 20.05.2022, instructing respondent No.2 to direct respondent No.3 to impose a punishment of withhol