Disposed

Gunda Kishore Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Jun 2025WP/12329/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Health Supervisor challenged a charge memo issued without show cause notice over alleged fake vehicle log books during deputation as Sanitary Inspector. The court directed him to file his defence within one week, the enquiry to conclude in four weeks, and consideration of his promotion without reference to the disciplinary proceedings, subject to their outcome.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit defence statement within one week; enquiry to be concluded within four weeks thereafter; promotion to next cadre to be considered per seniority without reference to disciplinary p

Gunda Kishore Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 12329 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gunda Kishore Kumar, S/o: Mallaiah, aged about 51^years, Occ. Multi Purpose Health Supervisor, District Medical and Health Officer, Karimnagar, r/o H.No.6-57l20/1, Chintakunta village, Karimnagar Mandal and District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

,| The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

2 The Director of Municipal Administration, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶14

J The Joint Director, o/o Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration. 640, AC Guards, Hyderabad.

¶15

4 Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Ramagundam, Peddapalli District. Erstwhile Karimnagar District.

¶16

¶17

The District Medical and Health Officer, Karimnagar.

¶18

6 The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare Department, Kachiguda Hyderabad-27

¶19

(As per Court Order dl:20112123 vide l.A.No.4 of 2023 in W.P. 12329123 Respondent No.6 impleaded)

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ.of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No 1^{in issuing the G.} O. Rt. No. 58 (MAUD, VIG lll) Dept, Dt. 10.02.2023 served^{through the5th} Respondent herein appending the articles of charges without issuing any Show Cause Notice and without any authority or^{jurisdiction,} and also^{consequentialG.}

¶22

l}''r w'

¶23

O. Rt. No. 128 (MAUD, VIG lll Dept, Dt. 18.03.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, irrational and without permissible in law, instead of earlier prayer wherever it occurs in the WP No 12329 of 2023 and connected lAs therein in the interest of justice.

¶24

(As per court order dated:- 1232912023 Yide l.A. 212025 in W.P. _No.1232912023^{prayer is amended)} dtr

¶25

lA NO:^'t OF 2024

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to perrnit the Petitioner herein to file Additional Material Papers in WP No.12329 of 2023 tor better adjudication in the interest of justice.

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour1. may be pleased to suspend the impugned order bearing G.O.Rt.No. 58 dt. 10-2-2023 issued by the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶29

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thq High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file l.A,No. of 2023 in W.P.No.12329 <rt 2023 and passed orders in l.A.No.1 of 2023 inW.P12329 of 2023 and suspenrJ the G.O.Rt.No.58 dt;10.2.2023.

¶31

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶32

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 direct the respondent no.6 gave promotion and increments tc the petitioner as per Rc.No. 1 0521E4.C12023 dt; 6.3.2023.

¶33

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶34

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 pleasedto} suspend the G.O.Rt.No.128^{(MA Et UD VIG-Ill),} )ept.,^{Dt: 18.03.2025pending} disposal of the Writ^{Petitionin the interest of justice.}

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SM. M^BHAGYASRI

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR SERVICES^I

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SMT.^{R. MADHAVILATHA, SC FORTHE} SERVICE MATTERS OF MUNICIPAL^{CORPORATION RAMAGUNDAM}

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S and 6: AGP^FOR HEALTH^{AND FAMILY} PLANNING

¶39

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶40

HON'BLE MRS SUREPALLI NANDA 'USTICE

¶41

WRIT PETITION o.12329 ot 2023

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

Heard Smt. M. Bhagyasree, learned counse! appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Assastant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behatf of respondent Nos.l to 3, Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned Standing Counsel for the service matters of Municipal Corporation, Ramagundam, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and !earned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family ptanning, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.S and 6.

¶44

2 The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶45

".-.to pass a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing the G. O. l1t. No. 58 (MAUD, VIG III) Dept, Dt. 10.O2.2023 served through the 5th Respondent herein appending the articles of charges without issuing any Show Cause Notice and without any authority or jurisdiction, and also consequential G. O. Rt. No.128 (MAUD, VIG III Dept, Dt. 18.03.202!; as being illegal, arbitrary, irrational and without permissible in law, instead of earlier prayer wherever it occurs in the Wp No.

SN. J wP 12329 2023

-l

¶50

12329 of 2023 and connected IAs therein in the interest of justice".

¶51

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner had been appointed as Health Assistant in the year 1999 and had been deputed to work under the control of the 5th respondent and had been discharging his duties diligently without any complaint. On 22.02.2015 the petitioner had been sent on deputation as Sanitary Inspector in the 4th respondent Municipal Corporation. On 12.0L.2021 the petitloner had been transferreC to his parental department i.e. Medical and Health Department pursuant to the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.317 and posted at the office of the District Medical and Health Officer, PHC, Manakoindur. The petitioner received the impugned order bearing G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 10.02.2023 issued by the 1't respondent through the 5th respondent, wherein certain charges were framed against the petitioner alleging that while the petitioner was functioning as Sanitary Inspector on deputation in the 4th respondent Corporation, petitioner had submitted fake log books of sanitary vehicles, fake vehicle maintenance and fake bills for the fuel and caused financial loss to the Corporation. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said allegation

¶52

¶53

SN, J wP 12329 2023

¶54

pertains to the period from August,2020 io December,2021 but tlre petitioner had taken charge on 22.A2.2015 iind worked till August, 2020. The charges framed against the petitioner are far from truth and without any iota of evidence as no show cause notice was served on the petitioner prior to isr;uance of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.sB, dated L0.02.2023, issued by the 1't respondent through the 2nd respondent to the petitioner herein and aggrieved by the same, petitioner approachec the Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶55

PERUSED TH E RECORD.

¶56

(A) The co nter affidavit filed on e alf of resDon ent Nos.l to 4, in oarticular Dara Nos.s and 6, are

¶57

extracted hereunder:

¶58

"5. It is submitted that 1st respondent issued GO Rt.No.58, MA & UD (Vig.III) Dept., Dated:tO.O2.2O23 franred articles of charges against the petitioner Sri G.Kishore Kurnar, the then Sanitary Inspector and directed to submit his written statement of defence within (15) days from the date oF receipt of the said G.O. But the petitioner had not submitted any explanation or defence statement against charges framed on him despite receipt of the copy of the G.O. It is submitted that the l't respondent is being the head of MA & UD Department, after receiving detailed enquiry report from Addl. Collector (LB), Peddapalli on allegations rnade against

-^\t-.i

SN, J wP 12329 2023

the petitioner had framed cha rqes aoainst the etitioner iven rt nl to sub thi efen state ent within 15 davs of receiot of the CODr,.

¶64

rt s subm itted that the Detitioner wit out submittinq anv reolv to the G.O. t.No.5a. dated lo.o2.2 O23 filed the Dresent writ petition questioninq the issuanceof G.O. as i!leqal. There are serious allegations raised against the petitioner and the Addl. Collector (LB), IAS enguired and found prima facie e,.,idence to conduct a detailed enquiry snd sub:-nitted the repot for higher officials. The writ petitioner with an intention to avoid the punishment and to escape from the enquiry proceedings filed the abbve writ petition by misrepresenting the facts.,,

¶65

DISCUSSION AN D CONCLUSION:

¶66

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned G.O.Rt.No.58, dated L0.02.2023 issued to the petitioner is iliegal and is liable to be set aside on the^ground that Articles of CharEes had been framed against the petitioner without issuing prior notice to the petitioner and, further on the ground thai it is falsely alleged that while petitioner was functioning as Sanitary Inspector on deputation in Ramagundam Municipal Corporation during the period August 2O2O to December 2021 the petitioner had submitted fake log books of sanitary vehicle and fake bills for the fuel and had

.ffi-

SN, J w 12329 2023

caused financial loss to Ramagundam Municipal ()orporation and further on the ground that the delay in issuing the impugned charge Memo G.O.Rt.No.58 dated lO.O2.2OZ3 in the year 2023 when the alleged irregularities pertain to the period August 2020 to December, 2O2l remained unjustified and unexplained by the respondents 1 and 2 herein and hence, l_he impugned proceedings G.O.Rt.No.58, dated LO.O2.2OZ3 needs to be set aside and the petitioner's case needs to be r:onsidered for promotion.

¶71

The learned Assistant Gove rnment Pleader on the other hand draws attention of this Cou rt to the imDuo ned orocee dinqs G.O. t.No.58. dated 1 0.02.2023 oarticul a rlv oara No.3 and conte s that in spite of soecific directio n to the e itioner mit h ritten tem tofde withi 5 rla rom h date of the said orocee inqs G.O. Rt.No.58. dated 70.02.2023. further the learned Assistant Government pleader placing reliance on para No.10 of the counter affldavit filed on behalf of the 1't ffi H" :::::'. ::::," :",'::':'Jff : : i,:' :: i::: " being delayed since petitioner is not cooperating with the Enquiry

--^-.t \l

SN, J wP 12129 2023

proceedings to avoid punishment. The learned Assistant Govern me t Pleader further sub^mits that^{the writ oetition could} be disoosed of by directinq the^res Dond^{ents1 and 2 to conclude} the enquirv initiated aoainst the oetitioner^{vide G.O.Rt.No.58,} dated 1 .02.2023 issued to the^{oetitioner bv the 1tt resDondent} throuq h the 2nd resp ondent.

¶79

6, A bare perusal of the record indicates that the^Government issued G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 2L.72.2024^{appointingoneSri} A.Maruthi Prasad, Municipal Commissioner,^Mancherial Municipality as Enquiry Officer to^{conduct inquiry into the} Charges framed against the^{petitioner and also the Manager,} Ramagundam Municipal Corporation^{as Presenting Officerto} present the case before the Enquiry Officer on behalf of^the disciplinary Authority. This Court^{opines that in view of the} specific^{plea put} forth by the^{learned counselappearing on behalf} of the^petitioner that^{promotionsare likely to take place soon} and the^petitioner's case for^{promotion to the next cadre cannot} be ignored due to the allegations^{levelled against the petitioner} in the year 2023, with no enquiry having comHenced^{evenas on} date, this Court opines that^petitioner should^{furnish petitioner's} written statement of defence in^{response to G'O.Rt.No.58dated}

SN, J wP 12329 202'l

L0.02.2023 issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent and cooperate with the enquiry so as to enable conclusion of the enquiry by passing of appropriate orders by the Disciplinary Authority in accordancr: to Law within a reasonable period and in the meantime petitioner's case for promotion to the next cadre as per seniority should be considered for promotion without reference to the disciplinary proceedings.

¶84

Division Bench of this Court i.e., High Court of Andhra Pradesh as it then was, in the case of K.Sai Ram y State of Andhra Pradesh reported in ZOLT SCC Ontine Hyderabad 549 vide its Judgment dated O7.O9.2O17 hetci that a "person cannot be penalized by keeping disciplinary proceedangs pending for unduly long periods and in the said case the promotion to the petitioner therein was directed to be considered, with a clear observation that same however shall be subject to outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

¶85

Similar view was taken by this Court vide its Judgment dated 31.07.2O18 passed in W.p.No.2l3OG of 2018.

,
ll

SN, J wP t2129²⁰²³

Hence,^{this Court opines that petitioner is entitled} for grant^{of relief of considerationof petitioner'scase for} promotion without^{reference toG'O'Rt'No'58 dated} Lo.o2.2o2Sissuedtothepetitionerbythel"trespondent through the^{2nd resPondent'}

¶90

8 T kin int co sid^ration (a) The facts^{and circumstanccs of the case'}

¶91

(b) The submissions^{maCeby the learncd counsel} appearing^{onbehalf al thepetitioner' thelearned} Standing^{Counse! appeering cn behalfof respondentsand} tire tearned^{Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I'} appearing^{on behalf of respcnCcntNos'1 to 3'}

¶92

Court^{oPinesthat promotion isnot a} (c) This fundamental right but^{Right tobeconsidered for} promotion however^{is a funCamentatRight' since sucha} right brings^{n'ithin its purview an effective'purposeful} and meaningful^{consideration'}

¶93

on record that^G.O.RI'No'S8 (d) The fact^borne to the Petitioner^{bY the ld} dated 1O.O2.2023,^issued respondent^{throughthe 2"d respondent pertains to the} alleged^{irregutarities committed by the petitioner during}

SN, J wP t2329 2021

{ t

the period August 2O2O to Decgnrber,2O21^{and the same} indicates malafides on thc^part of 1tt respondent^and hence it is but necessary to^put an^end to^{ther c.rquiry.}

¶100

(e) The Division Bench Judgment of this Court reportcd in 2OL7 SCC Online Hyderabad 549,

¶101

(f) The Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.213O5 of 20L8,

¶102

The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit the wiitten statement of^petitioner's defence to G.O.Rt.No.58, dated LO.O:-.2O23 issued to the petitioner by the 1't respondent through the 2nd. respondent herein, within a period of one⁽¹⁾ week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by^{putting forth} all the objections/pleas pertaining to the issuance of the said G.O.Rt.No.58, dated LO.O2.2O23 issued to the petitioner by the 1"t respondent through the znd respondent and the l"t respondent shall duly consider the same and initiate appropriate action and issue appropriate directions to all concerned to conclude the enquiry initiated against the petitioner vide impugned G.O.RI.No.S8 dated LO.O2.2O23 of the l't respondent

'-\l

SN, J wP t2329 2023

through the 2nd rcspondent^{within a period of four (O4)} weeks thereafter in accordance^{to Law, in conformity with} principles of natural^justice anC^{pass appropriateorders} thereon.

¶108

The respondents are fu:'ther^{directed to considerthe} case of the^petitioner for^{promotion to the next cadre as} per seniority along with all other eligible^candidatesin accordance to Law without^{reference to the disciplinary} proceedings initiated agaanst the^{petitioner, subject to} finat outcome of the^{disciplinaryproceedings initiated} against the petitioner.

¶109

It is further observed that^{if petitionersucceeds in} cstabtishing his innocence^{in the disciplinary proceedings} pending against him petitioner is^{entatled to claim all} service benefits as^{per petitioner'slegal entitlement'} However there shall be^no order^{as to costs.}

¶110

As a sequel, the^{miscellaneous petitions,} if any^pending, in the Writ^{Petition shall alsostand closed.}

¶111

l. - .a,

¶112

SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD D PUTY REGISTRAR

To,

/ITRUE COPY/'

ECTION OFFICER

The Principal^{Secretary,Munic-ipalAd-ministrationand Urban Development} ' o.iij,iiii"6t, seiieiiiiSi, ir'e siate of relansana, Hvderabad'

¶118

The Director^{of Municipal Administration, State of Telangana' Hyderabad'}

¶119

The Joint Director,^{o/o Commissioner and Director of Municipal} Administration. 640, AC^{Guards, Hyderabad'}

-rr,rl

--T:--...!@-

-7

Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Ramagundam, peodapalli District. Erstwhile Karimnagar' District.

¶124

fhe District Medical and Health Officer, Karimnagar.

¶125

One CC to Smt. M. Bhagyasri, Advocate [OPUC]

¶126

7 . Two CCs to GP for Services l, High Court for the State o.f Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶127

One CC to Smt. R. Mahavi latha, SC for the Service matters of Municipal Corporation, Ramagundam[OpUC]

¶128

o. Two cC to The Gp for Medical He3lth and Family planning, High court for the _^{State_oJTelangana, at Hyderabad[OUT]}

1 0.Two CD Copies

TJ PSK

{

HIGH COURT

CC TODAY

DATED:1 610612025

ORDER

WP.No.12329 of 2023

t T}IE s
t3
o
'(-
2 6 ,rU/tJ 2925
:ct)
=
c)
.rt

¶138

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶139

WITHOUT COSTS

¶140

Gunda Kishore Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunda Kishore Kumar v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kontham Priyamvada Vs State of Telangana

K. Vijay Kumar Vs T. Srinivasa Rao

Syed Lateef Ali Quadri Vs Sri Tafseer Ul Iqbal

Dr. Vemula Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana

Adaboina Vijayabhaskar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

E.Dasharatha Rami Reddy Vs The State of Telangana