Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17791

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ, G.M.Mohiuddin, J
Shaik Madar Saheb – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.295 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.Krishna Sharma
For the Respondents: Mohammed Imran Khan, Aruva Raghuram Mahadev

Disciplinary proceedings initiated by the issuance of a charge memo prior to retirement may validly continue post-superannuation. Such departmental inquiries operate independently of criminal proceedings, and their continuation for determining pensionary entitlements remains legally permissible provided they are conducted in accordance with service rules.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21 - Disciplinary proceedings - Withholding of terminal benefits - Superannuation - Delay in proceedings - Principles of natural justice and parity - Whether departmental proceedings initiated prior to retirement can continue post-retirement. (Paras 10, 13, 14, 16)

(B) Service Jurisprudence - Disciplinary Action - Initiation vs. Conclusion - Concept of ‘deemed service’ - Issuance of charge sheet constitutes commencement of proceedings - Retirement does not automatically abate disciplinary actions instituted during service - Power to withhold pension upon finding of grave misconduct. (Paras 16, 17, 18)

(C) Criminal Law - Departmental Inquiry - Distinction between standards of proof - Preponderance of probabilities vs. Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Closure of criminal case does not per se bind or terminate parallel departmental proceedings. (Paras 20, 21, 23)

(D) Administrative Law - Common Proceedings - Rule 24 of Disciplinary Rules - Discretionary nature of common inquiry - Parity in treatment - Principle that equality under Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim parity in potentially erroneous or lenient decisions. (Paras 24, 25)

Facts of the case:
An employee was issued a charge memo for alleged misconduct involving property management while serving on deputation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated prior to the employee's retirement. Post-retirement, final pensionary benefits were withheld due to the pendency of these proceedings. A criminal case filed regarding the same facts was closed by a judicial magistrate as being civil in nature. The employee sought to quash the disciplinary proceedings, arguing inordinate delay, the closure of criminal proceedings, and discriminatory treatment compared to a co-delinquent against whom charges were dropped.

Findings of Court:
Internal disciplinary proceedings remain insulated from criminal outcomes due to different standards of proof. The delay in the instant case, partially attributed to state bifurcation and administrative confusion, did not vitiate the proceedings. The charge memo was issued whilst in service, satisfying the jurisdictional requirement to continue proceedings post-superannuation.

Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated during service can validly continue post-retirement; whether closure of criminal proceedings mandates the closure of departmental inquiries; and whether the right to pension is absolute when disciplinary charges are pending.

Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary proceedings are legally deemed to be initiated upon the issuance of a charge memo. Under statutory service rules, such proceedings are explicitly permitted to continue post-retirement to facilitate the finalization of pensionary claims upon a finding of misconduct. The court affirmed that disciplinary actions are independent of criminal outcomes, and administrative delay, unless proved to cause specific prejudice, does not invalidate the disciplinary process.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions to conclude disciplinary proceedings within a specified timeframe and release of provisional pension in the interim.

Table of Content
1. factual history of disciplinary proceedings and petitioner's superannuation. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. parties' contentions regarding disciplinary proceedings and retirement benefits. (Para 10 , 11)
3. disciplinary proceedings initiated before retirement validly continue post-retirement. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. departmental proceedings are distinct and unaffected by criminal case outcomes. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and pensionary status directions. (Para 26)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT PETITION No.295 of 2025 DATE:08.04.2026 BETWEEN:

Shaik Madar Saheb ….Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and 4 others.

….Respondents

ORDER

Heard Sri S.Krishna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Telangana appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Aruva Raghuram Mahadev, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

“…….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Charge Memo and Article of Charges issued by the Respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.40, dated 17.02.2010 and the action of the Respondent No.2 & 3 in

withholding the retiral benefits including the final pension, gratuity and

other benefits on the pretext of issuance of charge memo as arbitrary,

illegal, unjust and for being violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the

Constitution of India and A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1991, and quash/set-aside the same and consequently

direct the Respondents to finalise and release the full pension and all retrial benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner from the date of his retirement i.e., 30.06.2011 till the date of realisation, including the arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of his retirement and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

Factual background (in brief)

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk/Junior Assistant in the Civil Supplies Department on 01.09.1978 and, in the course of his service, was promoted to the posts of Senior Assistant, Superintendent, Joint Director and ultimately Additional Director. While working as Additional Director in the Office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Hyderabad, the petitioner was deputed to the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Hyderabad, and assumed charge as Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O) on 07.06.2006.

4. While the petitioner was functioning as C.E.O of the A.P. State Wakf Board, a Charge Memo enclosed with Articles of Charges was issued by the 1^st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.40 dated 17.02.2010 proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘1991 Rules’). The substance of the charges, as set out in the Statement of Articles of Charge (G.O.Rt.No.40), is extracted hereunder:

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT PSs – Revenue Department – Sri Shaik Madhar Sheb, the then Chief Executive Officer, A.P. State Wakf Board, Hyderabad – Departmental Proceedings under Rule-20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 – Articles of charges –

Issued.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

MINORITIES WELFARE (V&C) DEPARTMENT G.O.Rt.No.40 Dated:17-02-2010 Read: Lr.No.M1/6/Prot/R.R/2005, dated:21-08-2009 from C.E.O., A.P.S. Wakf Board, Hyderabad.

*******

ORDER:

It is proposed to hold an enquiry aga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17791

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADAparesh Kumar Singh, CJ, G.M.Mohiuddin, JShaik Madar Saheb – AppellantVersusState Of Telangana – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.295 of 2025

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ, G.M.Mohiuddin, J
Shaik Madar Saheb – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.295 of 2025