HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.5428 OF 2017 Dated 6^th MAY, 2026 BETWEEN :

M. Surya Prakash … Petitioner v.

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Saifabad, Hyderabad & another … Respondents

ORDER:

Seeking to call for the records relating to and connected with Proceedings No.VSI(4)/2142/2007, dated 29.12.2007, set aside the same holding it as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefit, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Heard Ms. Mantha Lakshmi Anusha, learned counsel, representing Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

3) The case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working as Deputy Tahsildar in the office of Special Officer and Competent Authority under the Land Ceiling, a Charge Memo was issued to him vide proceedings dated 29.12.2007 alleging that while discharging his quasi judicial functions, he conducted an enquiry and recommended regularization of surplus land in favour of 15 persons, for which, the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 24.03.2008 denying the charge. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 31.12.2009 an Enquiry Officer was appointed, before whom also, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation. However, without considering the same, the enquiry was sought to be conducted. But, no enquiry was conducted by the department so far.

3.1) Learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner for further promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar was not considered by the respondents. In catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that prolonging the departmental enquiry beyond a reasonable period of 2 to 3 years would violate the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as it would not be humanly possible for any individual to minutely remember the facts of the case and contest the matter on merits. In the instant case, the charge memo was issued in the year 2005 i.e. more than 19 years back and now expecting the petitioner to participate in the enquiry would be arbitrary and depriving him a fair opportunity. Therefore, continuation of charge memo is arbitrary and unconstitutional and prays to allow the Writ Petition. Reliance has been placed on Amresh Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 417

4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submits that the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by framing Article of Charge vide proceedings No.VSI(4)/2142/2007 dated 29.12.2007 against the petitioner on the ground that he processed and regularized 15 files for getting the prime surplus government land admeasuring 9090 sq yards in survey No.361/1, 361/2 and 368/1 situated at Malkajgiri Village and Mandal allotted in favour of 15 ineligible persons during the year 2003 with ulterior motive basing on the fake tax receipts and by stating in his report that 15 structures were existing in the subject land. Further, the Joint Collector, Medchal-Malkajgiri, is appointed as Inquiring Authority

to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer has furnished Inquiry report through the CCLA, TG, Hyderabad. Further, the Vigilance and Enforcement has conducted an enquiry in the matter and reported that only 4 open top temporary structures, one ACC and a handled bore were in existence and the remaining land was with boulders and lying vacant. However, the petitioner has regularized the said plots in the year 2003 basing on fake property tax receipts. Learned Government Pleader further contends that to proceed further in the matter, a letter dated 12.09.2025 was addressed to Regional Scientific Assistant, Director Knowledge Innovation Centre, to furnish the KML fi