THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.1083 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The appellants – Telangana Grameena Bank are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.18413 of 2019, whereby the impugned order of punishment dated 27.09.2018, the appellate order dated 07.03.2018 and the review order dated 09.07.2019 have been set aside.

3. The learned writ Court has held that the respondent/writ petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service and monetary benefits including restoration of pay and seniority, which should be extended to him within eight weeks. The learned writ Court has, while doing so, taken into consideration that the respondent was denied opportunity of cross- examination and also held that the show cause notice dated 25.07.2017 was a predetermined exercise disclosing the mind of the disciplinary authority as to the punishment sought to be imposed. The learned writ Court also invoked the doctrine of proportionality while setting aside the impugned orders.

4. During the course of submissions though arguments had been addressed on the tenability of the aforesaid grounds for setting aside the impugned orders of punishment, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that while the other grounds may not be pressed on behalf of the respondent, the infirmity in the show cause notice dated 25.07.2017 cannot be supported by the appellants as the disciplinary authority has, at the stage of show cause notice and submission of enquiry report, revealed its mind as to the penalty proposed to be imposed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if the learned writ Court was satisfied that the impugned proceedings suffer from procedural irregularity or the infirmity in the show cause notice, the mater ought to have been remanded to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Instead, the entire proceedings have been set aside though the charges were proved.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid limited facts and circumstances, without getting into the details of the nature of the charge or the findings of the enquiry officer, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order from the stage of issuance of show cause notice with the copy of the enquiry report. The show cause notice dated 25.07.2017 extracted hereunder explicitly discloses a predetermined set of mind of the disciplinary authority to the punishment sought to be imposed upon the respondent even before his reply or comments on the findings of the enquiry officer were submitted:

“Lr. No.Gr.XII/2017-18/3829 Date: 25.07.2017 Sri Balakistaiah, (ID No.423), Regd.Post/Ack due Officer, MMGS-III, CONFIDENTIAL H.No.10-1-92/3-11-B, Janaki Enclave, Lingoji Guda, Saroornagar, HYDERABAD – 500 035.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS-SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Please refer to our Letter No.Gr.VII/2016-17/2289 dated 27.06.2016, advising the decision to conduct the enquiry into the charges alleged against you and communicated to you vide Charge sheet Lr.No.Gr.VII/2016-17/629 dated 30.04.2016. Sri A. Shankar Goud, Officer SMGS-IV/Chief Manager, T.G.B., Seetharampalli Branch (Presently working as Chief Manager, Accounts, T.G.B., H.O., Hyderabad) was appointed as inquiring authority to hold regular enquiry proceedings against the CSO, vide H.O.Lr.No.Gr.VII/2016-17/2290 dated 27.06.2016, to conduct the enquiry and submit his report.

2. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiring Authority (IA) has submitted his report dated 13.06.2017 and a copy of the same is enclosed. I hereby propose to impose on you the punishment of “Reduction of basic pay by (3) stages i.e., from Rs.54,410/- to Rs.50,030/- in the scale for a period of thr