I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.16479 OF 2023 Between:

Sri MD. Abdul Rahaman … Petitioner And The District Collector and Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 27.06.2025 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.16479 OF 2023 % 27.06.2025 Between:

# Sri MD. Abdul Rahaman … Petitioner And $ The District Collector and Others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Arvind Kumar Kata ^ Counsel for Respondents : AGP for Services-I ? Cases Referred:

i) The judgment of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board, dated 08.08.2005 reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 ii) The order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 07.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.5054 of 2017 in favour of the petitioner.

iii) The Division Bench Judgment of this Court, dated

07.07. 2014 passed in W.P.No.15165 of 2014 iv) The Division Bench Judgment of this Court, dated

26.04.2018 passed in W.A.No.664 of 2018 v) The Court of A.P. Vs. A.Rajeswar Reddy reported in 2010(3) ALD Page 501 (DB) SN, J vi) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of I ndia and Others reported in 2006 (5) SCC page 88.

vii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570.

viii) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdury reported in 2009 (7) SCC Page 305.

ix) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs.

Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.16479 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, 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 prayer as under:

“…pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to (a) by declaring the entire action of the respondents particularly action of the respondents 1 to 4 in initiating departmental proceedings vide Charge Memo in Proc. Rc. No. 978/B4/133/20131, dt 08.07.2017 for the issue DSC-1996 after lapse of 21 years of period and continuing the same despite of cooperation from the petitioner and on that account, not releasing periodical increments from 01.11.2015 onwards and not regularizing the suspension period between 25.06.2015 to 31.05.2017 is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust improper colorable exercise of power contrary to orders issued by the government in G.O.Ms.No. 679 G.A (Ser C) Department dt 01.11.2008 and the very alleged charge memo is liable to be set aside on the ground of inordinate delay / latches in initiation as well as in continuation and set aside or quash the very charge memo dated 08.07.2017 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

(b) and consequently hold that the entire action of the respondents in initiating departmental proceedings vide charge memo dated 08.07.2017 for the issue 1996 after lapse of more than 21 years and continuing the same in spite of cooperation from the petitioner and on that account not regularizing the suspension period between 25.06.2015 to 31.05.2017 and other way not releasing periodical increments w.e.f November 2015 onwards in the absence of any orders of punishment to that effect and not revising pay from time to time is bad in law unsustainable contrary to FR-24 and contrary to law laid down by Division Bench in W.P. No. 15165/2014 dated 07.07.2014 including various judicial pronouncements in the subject matter pending disposal and to pass…”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) pursuant to the DSC-1996 notification after securing 68 mark