Governmental authority to remove a functionary is valid when based on documented misconduct. Functionaries are vicariously liable for the actions of their subordinates, and judicial review is restricted to determining if the administrative decision is based on cogent material without arbitrariness.

ORDER:

The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that he was appointed under G.O.Ms.No.2, Minority Welfare, dated 07.02.2008, as Additional Kazi of Qazzat, Qile Mohammed Nagar, Hyderabad, and he was removed him from service vide the impugned order, G.O.Rt.No.65, dated 07.08.2025, without conducting any enquiry, without specifying any misconduct attributable to him, and without affording him an opportunity to defend himself, and therefore the same is violative of the procedures under Section 2 of the Kazi’s Act, 1880 .

1.1 It is stated that the petitioner’s jurisdiction as Additional Kazi covers the Qazzat, Qile Mohammed Nagar area, comprising parts of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy District, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, and portions of Medak District, and his appointment is subsisting, and he has discharged his duties for 15 years strictly in accordance with the Kazi’s Act, 1880 , without any occasion for complaint.

1.2 It is stated that the dispute began when the 1st respondent issued the first show cause notice dated 07.02.2025, directing him to explain within 15 days why he should not be suspended. This notice was premised on allegations that his Naib Kazis had been involved in performing child marriages and “various other illegal activities,” and that they had been arrested by several police stations as reflected in a report of the ACP, Faluknama, South Zone dated 27.04.2021. The petitioner reports that the notice further invoked the common judgment of the High Court dated 30.09.2024 in W.P.No.38879 of 2022 and W.P.No.34194 of 2017, as well as the instructions issued under G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 29.04.2022. In correspondence dated 24.02.2025, the petitioner submitted his formal explanation to the 1st respondent, denying the allegations entirely, enclosing details of criminal court acquittals relating to the accused Naib Kazis, and demanding that the proceeding be dropped. Further, the 1st respondent’s show cause notice dated 03.08.2023 accused him of issuing a divorce certificate contrary to existing law, and that he responded by letter dated 22.08.2023 addressed to the 1st respondent, in which he asserted that the certificate he issued—described as a “single talak (talak Rajace)” certificate—was fully permissible under Shariat principles, and therefore legal. In this communication he again requested that all further action may be dropped, and that neither the first nor second show cause notice identified any act of personal misconduct connected to his duties as Kazi. Despite this, the 1st respondent, allegedly acting under the influence of “enmically disposed persons,” proceeded to issue G.O.Rt.No.65, dated 07.08.2025, removing him from office. The petitioner asserts that he was given no opportunity to rebut any allegation, and that the State’s action constitutes an impermissible ex post facto determination of misconduct—particularly because the Act does not define the term “misconduct.” Further, the respondent relied on a judgment in W.P.No.10893 of 2024, decided on 24.04.2024, which merely directed compliance with proceedings dated 31.08.2023 and 22.09.2023, that has no bearing on the impugned order.

1.3 The petitioner contends that the only substantive claims ever raised concerned (i) alleged child-marriage performances by his Naib Kazis and (ii) his issuance of a divorce certificate—neither of which amount to misconduct under the Act. The petitioner further states that the respondent countered the petition