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 NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.14271 of 2009 DATE: 02.02.2026 Between Md. Samiuddin (died) & others …Petitioners AND The High Court of A.P. and another …Respondents

O R D E R:

(As per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)

Heard Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Venkat Rao Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sumanth Ravuri, learned counsel representing Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court appearing for respondent No.1.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s, viz., “……issue an order direction or writ of certiorari and after calling for the records quash the orders passed in G.O Ms No.117 Law Department, dated 05.11.2004 and pass other order or orders in the interest of justice.”

3. The G.O Ms No.117 Law (LA&J COURTS.C1) Department, dated 05.11.2004 was issued under clause (viii) of Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, basing on the letter issued by Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, vide D.O.Lr.No.1197/2003- Vigilance Cell, dated 16.09.2004 recommending to the Government for issuing necessary orders imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service upon the officer for allegation of misconduct.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.1/deceased died on 17.02.2025. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were brought on record as legal heirs of petitioner No.1, vide IA No.1 of 2025, dated 04.11.2025 and permitted to prosecute the writ petition. It is brought to notice of the Court that petitioner would had been retired from service, if he was in service after attaining the age of superannuation on

30.06.2010.

5. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1/deceased (hereinafter referred as ‘petitioner’) was initially appointed as Lower Divisional Clerk on 01.03.1976 in High Court of Andhra Pradesh, thereafter he was promoted to the post of Section Officer. In June 1996, he was appointed by transfer as Munsif Magistrate, while the petitioner was working as XII Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, the High Court on considering the suo-motu report, called for remarks from the petitioner, vide High Court proceedings dated 08.08.2003. The petitioner in turn submitted his remarks, dated 19.08.2003 on the report of Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the report of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and remarks of the petitioner were placed before Administrative Committee on 02.09.2003 and the Administrative committee resolved to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by framing appropriate articles of charges and to call for written statement.

6. The Registrar (Vigilance) issued Article of Charge, vide ROC No.1197/2003-Vigilance Cell, dated 15.10.2003 alleging that the petitioner did not record the statement of Sri K. Vijay Srinivas, Sub Inspector of Police, Saidabad Police Station- cum-Investigation Officer in CC Nos.1110, 1111, 1112, 1113/2000 and 464/2001. The said Investigation Officer appeared before petitioner on 26.08.2002 as a witness and gave evidence in CC No.1110 of 2001 and 1109 of 2009. Despite the request made by the concerned Advocates to record the evidence of the Investigation Officer in other connected Calendar Cases viz., 1110 to 1113/2000 and 464/2001, the petitioner directed the Bench Typist of XII Metropolitan Magistrate to prepare copies of depositions of Investigation Officer in CC Nos.1110/2001 and 1109/2000 and treat them, as if the same had been recorded in the other connected calendar cases, without actually examining the witness in open Court in those cases.

7. In reply to the article of charge framed against petitioner, the petitioner submitted a detailed statement, dated 11.11.2003 denying the charges leveled a