THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the entire action and procedure adopted by the respondents for issuing the present impugned order Mp/ AMCG/Esdtt/36/2012- 13/217, dated 20.6.2017 of the 1^st respondent, wherein imposing the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect even without furnishing report of the enquiry officer and without issuing final show cause notice is as highly illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction and consequently rejecting his appeal by the 2^nd respondent, even without considering any of the grounds vide DC/P-852/2015 dated, 23.4.2019 is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to CCA Rules and consequently hold that the petitioner herein is entitled for regularization of suspension period by treating the same as on duty for all the purposes and to pass…”

2. Heard Smt. Jyothsna, learned counsel, representing Sri R. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Thantrawahi Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Services-II on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was working as a Supervisor at respondent No.1 office, he was placed under suspension on 08.07.2015 and a charge memo dated 09.08.2016 was issued, for which, he submitted his detailed explanation, denying the charges. However, without considering the same, an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer, but without conducting any enquiry in terms of the procedure laid down under Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (for short, ‘CCA Rules’), he submitted his enquiry report dated 19.10.2016. However, without even communicating the said report to the petitioner and without following the procedure under Rule 21 of the CCA Rules, the impugned order dated 20.06.2017, imposing a minor penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, was passed by the Chairman of the respondent Committee, who lacks jurisdiction as per Rule 198 of the Agriculture Market Rules, which empowers the Secretary alone to impose the said punishment against the petitioner.

4. It was further submitted that the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Director of Agriculture Market Committee against the order dated 20.06.2017 on 20.07.2017, raising several grounds including that of jurisdiction, but since no action was taken thereon, he filed W.P.No.20032 of 2018, which was disposed of on 15.06.2018, directing the Director of Agriculture Marketing Committee to pass final orders within a period of eight weeks. However, without considering any of the grounds raised by the petitioner, his appeal was rejected vide impugned order dated 23.04.2019, without any grounds, except stating that the petitioner had failed to perform his legitimate duties as a mediator. As such, the impugned appellate order is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to rules.

5. It was contended that the Chairman, Agriculture Marketing Committee, despite having no jurisdiction, had failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 21 of the CCA Rules before passing the punishment order, as the enquiry report was never furnished to the petitioner. Therefore, the very order passed by the Chairman is per se illegal. It was also contended that in furtherance of the notice issued by the enquiry officer, the petitioner appeared before him, but without conducting any enquiry, the petitioner was simply asked to submit his statement of defense, if any, which he had immediately submitted. Subsequently, the enquiry officer appears to have submitted his rep