*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO +W.P. No.18163 OF 2022 % 03-04-2025 # Ch. Ramesh ….petitioner Vs.

$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government and 3 others …. Respondents !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.V. Ramana Counsel for the Respondents : G.P for Services-I

? Cases referred:

1. (1998)4 SCC 154

2. (2006)5 SCC 88

3. (2021) 12 SCC 460 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

WP. No.18163 OF 2022 Between:

Ch. Ramesh ….petitioner Vs.

$ State of Telangana, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government and 3 others … Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 03.04.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

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

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

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes __________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.18163 of 2022

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed for quashing the departmental proceedings initiated under Articles of Charge issued in Rc.No.1656/2016/M4, dated 21.03.2017 in respect of an incident pertains to 2014 in spite of submitting the report by the Enquiry Officer on 05.03.2019.

2. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Forest Section Officer in February 2008 at Kamareddy Division of erstwhile Nizamabad District. The petitioner worked as a Forest Section Officer for Reddypet Section, Kamareddy Range of Kamareddy Division, from October 2009 to June 2014. During the said period, as per the estimates sanctioned by the Divisional office for construction of boundary pillars, work was executed under Vana Samrakshana Samithi (VSS) as per the procedure contemplated. Works were executed as per the estimates prepared and after works were completed, work completion reports were incorporated in the Division Accounts accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamareddy. In 2014 itself the Divisional Office accepted the works. While stood thus, the Vigilance & Enquiry personnel from the Directorate Office, conducted field inspection and found certain irregularities in respect of usage of steel and concrete for laying down foundations.

3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the report, it was found that in view of the said irregularities, loss of an amount of Rs.32,342/- was caused to the exchequer. Based on the report of Vigilance & Enquiry, dated 10.02.2015, Articles of Charge was issued by the 3^rd respondent nearly after 3 years i.e., on 21.03.2017 framing single charge. On 01.05.2017, the petitioner sought furnishing the report of D.G., Vigilance & Enquiry, dated 10.02.2015 and copies of M.Books. On furnishing the same, the petitioner submitted a reply on 04.07.2017, denying the charge in toto. The petitioner raised objections against the lapses pointed out by the Vigilance & Enquiry personnel. The petitioner was transferred from the said place and during the new incumbent period Vigilance & Enquiry, submitted reports without knowing the truth in the allegations.

3(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after submitting reply to the charge on 02.08.2017, the 3^rd respondent appointed Divisional Forest Officer, Kamareddy, as an Enquiry Authority for submitting findings within three months. Subsequently, the said Enquiry Officer was changed and Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by proceedings dated 03.10.2017 and directed him to submit his findings within three months. After lapse of four months, the 3rd respondent appointed Forest Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, as Presenting Officer. This itself shows that