IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.2244 OF 2017

8^th APRIL, 2026.

Between:

R. Chandrakanth Rao …Petitioner AND State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and (2) others … Respondents

O R D E R :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“... declaring the action of respondents in not completing the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide proceedings No. 13028/CPR-K2/2005 dated 26.12.2005 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently set aside the charge memo issued in proceedings No. 13028/CPR-K2/2005 dated 26.12.2005 .....”

2) Heard Mr.S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel, representing Ms.K.V. Rajasree, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-II for respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Extension Officer, Panchayat Raj &

Rural Development. at Mandal Parishad, Bhiknoor, Nizamabad District, based on some newspaper clippings a charge memo was issued to him vide Memo No.13028/CPR-K2/2005 dated 26.12.2005, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charges. However, without considering the said explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he held that the charges framed against the petitioner are not proved vide Enquiry Report No.A1/946/2005-07 dated 24.12.2007. However, disagreeing with the said findings, respondent No.2 ordered denovo enquiry vide proceedings dated 03.11.2008 contrary to CCA Rules. Learned counsel submits that the charge memo is of the year 2005 and the Enquiry Officer has already held in the year 2007 that the charges are not proved. Despite the same, denovo enquiry was ordered in the year 2008, but no steps are taken to complete the enquiry. He further submits that the petitioner has retired from service in the year 2016 and facing several financial crisis due to non-release of pension. Learned counsel contends that as per the instructions of the Government, in simple cases enquiry should be completed within 3 months and in grave cases enquiry should be completed within 6 months. But, in case of the petitioner nearly 21 years have lapsed from the date of issuance of the charge memo and enquiry is not yet commenced.

Therefore, on the ground of inordinate delay, the charge memo is liable to be quashed.

4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submits that on certain allegations in execution of Food Assurance Programme, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 06.09.2005 and an Article of Charge vide impugned memo dated 26.12.2005 was issued to him based on the report submitted by the CEO, ZPP, Nizamabad District, vide letter dated 22.11.2005 framing five charges and alleging that he failed to maintain absolute integrity in discharging his official functions and thereby caused derogatory to the prestige of the Government. However, subsequently, he was reinstated into service on 15.02.2006 pending finalization of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a detailed enquiry on the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Further, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Nizamabad, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct detailed enquiry on the allegations levelled against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 15.02.2006. The said Enquiry Officer has submitted his report vide letter dated 24.12.2007 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. After verification of the said Inquiry Report, the disciplinary authority has observed that the Enquiry Officer has not gone into the propriety of expenditure categorically and thereby appointed the Joint Collector, Nizamabad District, to conduct denovo enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 03.11.2008. Learned Government Pleader further su