Allowed

M.Somi Reddy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Dec 2023WP/35684/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a government employee denied promotion due to pending disciplinary proceedings. The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were deemed to have lapsed after the Government issued an order exonering the petitioner, directing respondents to consider his case for promotion. (Thin)

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be promoted to Additional Director of School Education with all consequential benefits.

M.Somi Reddy Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENry SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

|.A.NO.1 0F 2023 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO: 35684 OF 2022

¶7

wP NO.35684 0F 2022:

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.Somi Reddy, S/o Linga Reddy. Aged about⁵ 1 years, Joint Director of School Education, Telanagana Open Schools Society, Abids, Hyderabad, Rl/o Plot No. 264, F .C.1. Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary to^{Government, EducationDepartrnent,} Secretariat T.S. Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissionei, and Director of School^{Education, T.SHyderabad}

¶14

ESpoNDENTs Petition under Article 226 oi the Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the}

¶15

circumstances stated in the affidavit^filed therewith,^{the HighCourt may be pleased to} issue an appropriate Writ, Order or^{Direction, moreparticularly one in the nature of a} Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the^{Respondentsin not consideringand} thereby denying^promotion to the Petitioner^{to the post of Additional Director of School} Education at the threshold itself by citing^{pendency of chargememo issued in G.O. Rt.} No.81 School Education^(Vigilance) Department^{dated 09.05.2017 by the 1st} Respondent for an alleged incident^{pertaining to 2015-16,as being arbitrary,illegal'} irrational, contrary to the time limit^{stipulated for completion of enquiriesin G. 0. Ms.} No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and^{Rule 20 of TSCS(CC and A) Rules 1991 and to the} judgments reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570, 2010(3) ALD 50'l and in violation of^Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of^{lndia and consequertlyhohthat the Petitionerertitled} to have his claim considered^{and be promoted as Additional Directorof School} Education without reference to the disciplinary^{proceedingspending vide charge memo} dated 9.5.2017 issued by the 1st respondent^{with all consequentialbenefits in the} interest of^justice

¶16

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the HighCourt may be pleasedto direct the} respondents to consider the^case of the^{Petitioner for promotionto the post of} Additional Director. School Education^{without referenceto the charge memo issued by} the respondent vide G.o.^{Rt. No.81School Education (Vigilance) Departmentdated} 09.05.2017 in relation on^{alleged incident pertainingto 2015-'16 on the analogy of} orders issued in similar cases and to^pass

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Section¹ 51 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt maybe pleasedto direct the} Respondents to consider the case of the^{Petitioner for promotionto the postof} Additional Director, School Education^{withbenefits incidentalthereto consequentto} Petitioner's exoneration from disciplinary^{proceedingsvide orders issued in G.O. Rt.} 194 School Education^(Vigilance) Department^{daled 0911012O23}

¶21

lA NO: 2 OF 2022:

¶22

Between:

¶23

1 State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary^{to Government, EducationDepartment,} Secretariat T. S. Hyderabad.

¶24

2 The Commissionei, and Director of School Education,^{T.S HyderaO3.ar"onoan}

¶25

AND

¶26

M.Somi Reddy, S/o Linga Reddy, Aged about⁵ 1 years, Joint Director of School Education, Telanagana Open Schools Society, Abids, Hyderabad, R/o Plot No. 264, F .C.1. Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to vacatethe} interim order Daled.^{1410912022in l.A.No. 'l of 2022 in WP No 35684of 2022and} dismiss the Writ^{Petition as devoidof merits}

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{V. RAVICHANDRAN}

¶30

Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES^I

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

-7

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK

¶34

I.A. No. I of 2023 in/and WRIT PETITION No.35684 OF 2O22

¶35

COMMON ORDER:

¶36

'lhis Writ Petition is hled for the following relief:

¶37

"...to issue an appropiate Writ Qrder or Direction more particttlarly one in the nature oj a Wit of Mandamus declaing the action of the Respondents in not consideing and therebg denAing promotion to the Petitioner to the post of Additional Director of School Education at the threshold itsetf bV citlng pendencg of charge rnemo tssued in G O Rt No 81 School Education Vigilance Department dated 09 Os 2017 bg the 1st Respondent for an alleged incident peftaining to 2015-16 as being arbttrory illegal trrational contrary to the tinle limit stipulated Jor completion of enquiies in G 0 Ms No 679 dated Ol 11 2008 andRule 2O o/ ISCSCC and A Rules 1991 and to the judgments reporled in 1995 2 SCC 570 20103 ALD 5Ol and in utolation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution oI Indn and consequently tald that the Petitioner entitled, to have his claim considered and be promoted as Additional Director of Scttool Ed.ucation uithout reJerence to the discipLinary proceedings pending uide charge meruo dated 9 5 2017 issued bg the lst respondent with alt consequentiaL benefits in the interest oJ justice. "

¶38

'lhe case of the petitioner, in brief, is that while he was working as District Educationai Officer, Hyderabad and project Officer (FAC), SarvaSikshaAbhiyan, Flyderabad, during the period from 1O.O4.2015 to 1O.10.2016, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and others by the 1st respondent Government uide G.O.Rt.No.81, School Education (Vigitance) Department, dated 09.O5.2017, alleging irregularities in payment of honorar-ium to the Vidya Volunteers working in Madarsas of Hyderabad District, and

¶39

¶40

PK,I wp 35684 2022

¶41

the same are still pending. In vieu, of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, though the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post ol Joint Director of School Education, his case was not considered for promotion. Aggrieved by the same, he filed Writ Pitition No.39732 of 2078 and pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition, the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director of School Education uide G.O.Rt.No.2 dated O5.O3.2O 19 and he is presently working as such. While the matter stood thus, the respondents are taking steps for filling up the post o[ Additional Director of School Education by promotion. Petitioner contends that he is not responsible for the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and others and as such his case for further promotion cannot be denied. It is his main grievance that in view of pendency of disciplinary^proceedings against him, the respondents may not consider his case for promotion to the post of Additional Director of School Education. In these circumstances, he has filed the^present Writ Petition.

¶42

On 14.O9.2022, this Court passed an interim order, operative portion of which reads under:

¶43

"In view of the same, and as an interim measure, this^Court deems it fit axd^proper to direct the respondents to consider^the case of the petitioner lor promotion to the post of Additional

¶44

¶45

PK,J wp_i56U_2022

¶46

Director of School Education without reference to the charge memo issued on 09.O5.2017 and promote him if he is otherwise eligible, the same sha-ll be subject to the decision taken by the Government on the disciplinary proceedings."

¶47

Heard Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearing for both the respondents.

¶48

0 t

¶49

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ petition, the l.t respondent Government issued G.O.Rt.No.194 dated 09 .1O.2023 exonerating the petitioner from the charges duly dropping further action against him. A copy of the said G.O. is filed along with I.A. No. I of 2023.

¶50

Having regard to the fact that the Government, after careful examination of the matter, has issued G.O.Rt.No. i94 dated 09 .1O.2023 exonerating the petitioner from the charges duly dropping further action against him, it has to be construed that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner uide charge memo dated 09.05.2077 are deemed to have lapsed from the date of initiation.

¶51

7 . Therefore, I.A. No. I of 2023 as well as the Writ Petition are allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the

¶52

¶53

PK,J wp_35684-2022

¶54

petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Director of School

¶55

\ \

¶56

Education with all consequential benefits.

¶57

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Writ

¶58

Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

ASSdil$TYR?38+:iR //TRUE COPY// \ I sscn#orrtcen^I

¶60

To, 1 The Princioal Secretary to^{Government, Education Department, State of} Telangand, Secretariai^{T.S. Hvderabad.}

¶61

z Tne C"ommissioner,^{and Direcior of School Education, T'S Hyderabad}

¶62

5 On" CC to^{Sri V Ravichandran Advocate} tOPUCl;. i;; cc" t" cp^{For Services,High Court ior the State of Telangana [oUTl} 5. Two CD CoPies MB BS

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2211212023

1 $E S TA r€
o
co 2 5 ,iAN 202[ oz
,+

D
ES p.fii (:i'.<,o

¶67

COMMON ORDER

¶68

f.A.NO.1 0F 2023 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO: 35684 OF 2022

¶69

ALLOWING THE I.A. & WRIT PETITTON

¶70

WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

'-rr'1

M.Somi Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Somi Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Srinu Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Ch.Srivani M.a.(English) Vs The State of Telangana

P. Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana

K.Ramulu Vs State of Telangana

Bhudevi Padmashalli Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

T. Sreedevi Vs The State of Telangana