Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 9473
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Sarath, J
G. Sai Kiran – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.7827 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.P. Acharya
For the Respondents: G. Prasanth
A disciplinary authority cannot impose a punishment that is not explicitly prescribed under the applicable statutory rules; any penalty awarded outside the purview of such rules is a nullity and cannot be enforced.
Headnote:The petitioner, appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds, challenged the proceedings dated 01.03.2025 issued under the Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which imposed a major penalty of reduction to a lower time scale of pay and reversion to the post of Office Subordinate following disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. The court found that the specific punishment of posting to an inferior service to the initial appointment was not provided for under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1991. The primary issue was whether a disciplinary authority can impose a punishment not explicitly prescribed under the statutory rules. The court held that the disciplinary authority is bound to strictly adhere to statutory rules and cannot award punishments outside their purview, citing the legal maxim 'nulla poena sine lege', which mandates that no penalty should be imposed except for a clear breach of existing law and according to prescribed rules. this Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the proceedings dated 01.03.2025 in Proc.No.1808/E2/MS/DM&HO/Nzb/2024-25 passed by the respondent No.4 and granting liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules, 1991, based on the enquiry conducted by the respondents in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, if so advised.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of misconduct allegations and the subsequent disciplinary action leading to the impugned punishment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. analysis of rule 9 of the rules, 1991, determining that the imposed punishment was not legally prescribed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. application of the principle 'nulla poena sine lege' requiring strict adherence to statutory rules for penalties. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. setting aside of the illegal punishment order while granting liberty for a lawful order. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER:
Heard Sri T.P.Acharya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Prasanth, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing proceedings dated 01.03.2025 in Proc.No.1808/E2/MS/DM&HO/Nzb/2024-25, by which the petitioner was imposed with the major penalty of reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service, namely Office Subordinate in the Last Grade Service, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds on 21.05.2018. While it being so, the petitioner was suspended on 18.03.2024 and issued a charge memo dated 03.10.2024 by framing two charges against the petitioner. On the same day, an Enquiry Officer and an Assistant Enquiry Officer were appointed and the petitioner submitted an explanation to the said charge memo on 18.10.2024. The Enquiry Officers submitted their report dated 28.10.2024, based on which a show cause notice was issued on 16.01.2025 by enclosing the enquiry report. The petitioner replied thereto on 18.01.2025.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.4 issued the impugned punishment order dated 01.03.2025 and in the impugned order, two punishments have been imposed for the same charge, i.e., reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service, and reversion to the post of Office Subordinate (Last Grade Service). When the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds, reversion to the post of Office Subordinate is impermissible. Also, there is no provision to appoint an Enquiry Officer and an Assistant Enquiry Officer without appointing a Presenting Officer and the Enquiry Officer failed to examine the witnesses listed in Annexure-IV to the Charge Memo and afforded no opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them. In view of the same, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the proceedings dated 01.03.2025 issued by the respondent No.4.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.4, submits that oral complaints were received from various Medical & Health Unions on 26.01.2024 during a flag hoisting speech regarding Fake Regularization and declaration of the probation period of Smt. B.N.Tarabai (ST Candidate) Staff Nurse, CHC Armoor, with fake proceedings prepared on the name of the District Medical and Health Officer, Nizamabad, which was circulated through electronic media by the petitioner. Based on the allegations leveled by Smt.B.N.Tarabai, the Collector and District Magistrate, Nizamabad issued orders vide Rc.No.1808/E2/MS/DM&HO, Nzb/2024, dated 18.03.2024 for the suspension of the concerned official, whereupon the petitioner was placed under suspension. Meanwhile, Dr. Vidya Sagar, CAS, CHC Armoor, filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner had issued a fake Employee ID to him.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I further submits that a charge memo was issued under Rule 20 of Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for brevity, “Rules, 1991”
