IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WP.No. 32888 of 2021 Dt.20.02.2026 Between Kumari G.Govinda Lakshmi ….Petitioner AND The Government of Telangana & another.

Respondents O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao

1. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.40, Law (LA, LA&J-Home-Courts.A2) Department, dt.13.07.2021 issued by the Government of Telangana, subjecting the petitioner to major punishment of “compulsory retirement from service” as Junior Civil Judge, under Clause 8 Rule 9 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘CCA Rules’) and the consequential proceedings in ROC.Nos.1815/2015, 948/2016, 2266/2016 and 76/2019- Vigilance Cell, dt.13.07.2021, as illegal, contrary to Article 311 apart from it being violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Junior Civil Judge on 21.11.2008 pursuant to the notification issued by the then High Court for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2008. Initially, the petitioner was posted in Kurnool District and thereafter, she performed her duties as Junior Civil Judge in various Courts in the composite State of A.P., and during bifurcation of the composite High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, she was allocated to the High Court for the State of Telangana.

3. Further, pursuant to the complaints as to her misconduct, the petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry for the period during which she discharged her duties at Utnoor(Adilabad) and Warangal and she was served with four charge memos. The concerned District Judges, by following the procedure, issued show-cause notices directing the petitioner to submit explanations, and the petitioner has submitted explanations to the said show-cause notices. Further, the respondents not being satisfied with the explanations of the petitioner, have subjected the petitioner to departmental enquiries and appointed the respective Enquiry Officers to conduct enquiry on the four charge memos in accordance with the procedure laid down under A.P.

Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the rules’).

4. For convenience and better understanding, the charges framed and the findings of the Enquiry Officer recorded, in all the four Charge Memos are extracted hereunder in tabular format:

5. Basing on the Enquiry Reports submitted by the Enquiry Officer in all four Charge Memos, the 2^nd respondent issued show- cause notices vide proceedings in ROC.Nos.1815/2015, 948/2016, 2266/2016 and 76/2019, dt.18.06.2020, to the petitioner/delinquent officer calling for submission of objections/comments, to which the she submitted objections, dt.25.06.2020, to all the four show-cause notices, and the 2^nd respondent, not satisfied with the explanations offered by the petitioner/delinquent officer, issued proceedings ROC.Nos.1815/2015, 948/2016, 2266/2016 and 76/2019, dt.13.07.2021, sent recommendations to the 1^st respondent- Government for “imposing a major penalty of Compulsory Retirement” against the petitioner from service with 2/3^rd pension, and pursuant to which, the 2^nd respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.40, Law (LA, LA&J-Home-Courts.A2) Department, dt.13.07.2021, “imposing a major punishment of compulsory retirement from service” on the petitioner as Junior Civil Judge under Clause 8 Rule 9 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Assailing the said proceedings of the 1^st and 2nd respondents, the petitioner/delinquent officer filed the instant writ petition

6. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. M.Surender Rao representing the counsel on record, Sri Madiraju Srinivas Rao, for the petitioner/delinquent officer, Smt Shalini, learned Govt. Pleader Services-II appearing for respondent No.1-Government and S