Inidira , G. Nagamma, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, Maandud., Hyd and 3 Ot

Smt lnidira @ G-Nagamma,^{Dlo Sattaiafr, agedabout 58 years'Sw,eep-er/Kamaton'} circle No.g,7o^{H.No.g_1-1lD/g/B, Defense Colony, Langar Houze, HyoeraDao.}

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana,^{rep by its PrincipalSecretary,MA andUD'} Secretariat, HYderabad.

¶13

The Greater^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Chief} Commissioner, near^{Tank Bund, Hyderabad'}

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner,^{Circle No.9' GHMC, Hyderabad'}

¶15

The lnspector of^{Police, Vigilanceand Enforcement cell, GHMC'Hyderabad}

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ in^{the nature of a writ of mandamusor anyother} appropriate writ,^{direction,order or orders declaringthe action of the 2nd} respondent,s^{proceedings No.207'1lBI /LWS/GHIUCl2O14-82df. 07-04-2014as} the petitioner^{wasremoved fromservice as sweeper,Circle No'9' CentralZone'} GHMConanallegedthatthepetitionerisworkinginplaceofonelndira,despite thepetitionerhavebeendischargingherdutiessince.lgT5onwardswithoutany single bad^{remarksfound against the petitioner as wholly arbitrary' illegatand} withoutjurisdictionandvoidandviolatedtheprinciplesofnaturaljusticeand affectedthepetitionerrightsguaranteedunderArticles14,16and2lofthe ConstitutionoflndiaandconsequentlysetasidetheproceedingsNo.

¶18

1

¶19

2O71|B1ILWSIGHMCi2014-82^{dt. O7-O4-2014 passedby the 2nd respondent} herein by reinstating into the service^{with all benefits.}

¶20

|.A.NO:1 OF 2017^{(WPMP.NO: 19987 0F 20171}

¶21

Petition Under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the Highcourtmaybe pleasedto} direct respondents 2 and 3^{herein to reinstatethe petitiorier into the servicewith} all benefits by suspending^{the proceedings No.2071lB1/LWS/GHtMC/2014-82 dt.} 07 -04'2014^pending disposal^{of the writ petition.}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner^: SRI^{KAMALAKARA RAO BATHINA}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1^{: GP FOR MCPLADMN ANDURBAN} DEVELOPMENT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2^{to 4 : GP FOR SERVICES-lll}

¶25

The Court made the following^ORDER

1

wp_t6770 2O\7 NBK, J

i:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.16270 of 2017

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The petitioner-Smt Indira (@ G Nagamma) was appointed as a dailywager/\lMR in the year 197 5, and was subsequently regularized with effect from 01.12.1985 vide Proceedings dated 14.09.1998. In the year 2009, a complaint was filed against the petitioner by one Mr. Manikyam (who is said to be the father of the petitioner's daughter in-law) alleging that the petitioner's actual name is Nagamani and she is the wife of late Dharmaiah and belongs to Munnuru Kapu caste under Backward Class-D category, but she impersonated as Indira, wife of Sattaiah, claiming Madiga caste under Scheduled Caste category, and obtained employment as Kamatam (Sweeper) in the respondent-GHMC Department. Pursuant to the complaint, departmental proceedings were initiated by the respondent-Department, which culminated in her removal from service vide Proceedings dated 07.04.2014 issued by the Commissioner, GHMC. Challenging her removal fi'om service, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

¶33

Heard Mr. B. Kamalakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for Services-III. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit. He filed a Memo dated,20.01.2025, placing on record the Judgment dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No.3l7 of 2021, and contends that the criminal case filed against the petitioner ended in acquittal, and the appeal against the acquittal judgment ended in dismissal, thereby upholding the acquittal of the petitioner. Learned counsel also relies on the judgment of

:t

2

wp_76270_2017 NB(, J

the High court of Andhra pradesh (erstwhile composite state) in Bokam Simhadri vs. Visakhapatnam port Trustr

¶38

Leamed Govemment pleader, based on the counter atfidavit, would contend that the petitioner was removed from service after a dury constituted departmental enquiry and fo[owing the ccA Rules, and therefore there is no illegality in ti.re impugned order of removal from service.

¶39

5' At the outset, it is rerevant to note that the Department had also fired a criminal case against the peritioner vide FIR No.703 of 2009 in saifabad Police station alleging offences punishable under Sections 4rg,4r9, 420, 468 and 47r rpc and also under the sc/ST Act. After investigation, rhe Police filed charge sheet before the I Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (for short, .the trial court,), and the same was taken on file as c'c'No'ggl of 2016. The trial courl, after appreciating the orar evidence of^pws.1 to 12 andthe Exhibits p-1 to p-25 adduced on behalf of the prosecution, and Ex.Dl 0n beharf of the petitioner/accused, acquitted the petitioner vide Judgment dated,26.10.20rg. An appeal was fired against the Judgment of the trial court, in Criminar Appear No.3 l 7 of 202l before the Court ofthe Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, .the appellate Courl,). The appellate Courr, vide Judgment date d.Zl.ll,O24 dismissed the appeal, thereby confirmed the Judgment dated26.r0.20lg passed by the trial court.

¶40

In this connection, it is to be noted that the petitioner,s removal from service was in a deparlmental enquiry and not based on the judgment of the trial court in the C'c No. 99r of 20r6.The charges of impersonation against the petitioner were not proved by the prosecution before the triar court, nor belore the appellate Court.

¶41

1 2oo4 cJ (Ap) 18s

¶42

3

¶43

wp_L627 0-2ot7 NB(, ,,

¶44

I I

¶45

It is relevant to refer to the observation of the appellate Court, vide the Judgement dated,2l.1t .2024,at paragraph No s.Z3 and,24,which read as follows:

¶46

'::3; fhe appellantfurther contend that the rrial court ought to have compare and Ex.p6, pg, ptZ and F2l which are one and ,rlppreciated Nagamani @ rr;;";': :':"^{pertaining to the accused as} 1iy,sar,in"ilffi';,';r:;:;::',?:r",r"r,#,Jir*{ffi i.e. it might be at the time of marriage of her son, antl service ,:f,t.,n odmirted ,The by the^phorograph, prosecution^or" itself^onn'on; and ;;;;;;. if it""att person it is theas contention of the prosecution that ",rrn^{, narro )p"rronot"d} Nagamani or Nagamani_impersonared r;;;;;,;;r" might be 1:::!7^{rh7,nsrarhof rndir1} ",^{u"i",,i-,."Jstattrxh} mat vtce versa they impersonate-d the "rlrJ,^{pnrron"oithe history} of the other person, bur nothg u bro,;gnt-oo i"irr, ,rO" ,nr, showing that Indira -^{and wryr;rri ,rJdffirent} personatities. So, it was the.admissiin ;i;;" o;;;"fion that all the exhibits are one and rhe ,o.n ora'irir)irurna rno, Nagamani and Indira qre isnoimperson;,;;,";:;;il!;:::;,r#;;i;"t;:,:::f either persons H"n"L, in view of the above discussion, the appeal is devoid of merits and it ti tiable ,, U" i*"r"o 1.1,_.!: ,1" rlsutt, rhe aone!-is. dumissed by conJirming "6.z"i".nn,noruthe Judgment of acquittal dt.26 10.201B ," ';;'r:i"r::r^{,,the IAddt' chief Me}opoii" rut gi,,,o,", 8. It is to be noted that when the respondent_Department, basing on the oral and documentary testimony adduced by the prosecution, could not prove that the petitioner impersonated an individual named Indira, the respondent-Depaftment camot punish the petitioner fbr an offence or charge that has not been proved.

¶47

4

¶48

wp L6270_2077 NBK, J

¶49

At this^juncture, it is reievant to refer to the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board2, wherein the Hon,ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the payment of backwages in the case of a reinstated employee consequent to acquittaI in the-criminal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

¶50

"The only question is;whether he is entitled to back wages? It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for^{the rectson that his service wos} terminated on the basic of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceeding and the uction was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging lhe duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in his own backdrops. ln this case, since the petitioner hctd involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in joil. (lnder these circumstances, the petitioner is nctt entitled to payment of back wages.^"

¶51

In the instant case, the petitioner was not involved in a crime, or a misconduct under the Departmental Rules. She was removed from service in the departmental proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by one Manikyam who is said to be the father of daughter in-law of the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings were neither due to misconduct/dereliction of duties, nor due to involvement in a crime by the petitioner. Further, the

¶52

'z^{1996(11)scc603}

¶53

5

¶54

wp_76270 _2077 NBK, J

¶55

II

¶56

charges of impersonation a,eged in the complaint could not be proved against the petitioner by the respondent-Department in the criminal case filed against the petitioner.

¶57

Though criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings stand on a different footing, it is to be noted that it is the specific finding recorded by the trial Court, and as confirmed by the appellate Court, that the prosecution (or the respondent-Department) courd not bring any material on record to show that the petitioner (Nagamma) and the individual (Indira) are two different personarities, thereby itrwas herd that there was no impersonation on the part of the petitioner. That being so, it cannot be said that the petitioner resorted to misconduct entailing her to be out of employment; instead, it was the respondent_Department,s impugned action of removing the petitioner from service that has made her to be out of employment. Fufther, the action of respondent_Department in removing the petitioner from service was found to be unsustainable in law. Therefore, when there is no proven misconduct or involvement in a crime, there cannot be imposition of any punishment under the relevant CCA Rules.

¶58

12' In that view of the matter, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also the rationale in the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji (supra), and Bokam Simhadri (supra), this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case for awarding 50Yo of back wages from the date of removal from service till remstatement, with all consequential and attendant benefits, namely, seniority, promotion and other benefits which the petitioner would have earned had she continued in service.

¶59

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated'07.04.2014, by directing the respondent-GHMc to reinstate the

6

wp_16270_2017 N8K, J

\

petitioner, by paying 50%o of back wages from the date of removal fiom service till the date of reinstatement, rvith all consequential and attendant benefits, namely, seniority, promotion and other benefits. Further, as per the cause Title of the writ petition, the petitioner was 5g years ord by the date of filing this writ petition in 2017. we are now in 2025. rf the petitioner attained the age of superannuation, the 50oZ ofback wages and other benerrts granted in this order, shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of two months fiom the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in addition to processing her pension and retirement benefits within a period of four,months liom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶64

That Rule Nisi has been absolute^{as above.} Witness the Hon'ble the Acting^{ChiefJusticeSUJOYPAUL, on this} Thursday, the Sixth day^{of March, Two Thousand and Twentyfive.}

¶65

//TRUE COPY//

¶66

SD/-B. REKHA RANI
+ISTANT REGISTRAR

¶67

SECTION OFFICER

¶68

To

¶69

The Principal Secretary,^{MA and UD, Secretariat,} ate of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶70

The Chief Commissioner, Greater^{Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, near} Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

¶71

The Deputy Cbmmissioner, Circle^No I,^{GHMC, Hyderabad.}

¶72

a. The lnsfeitor of Police, Vigilance and^{Enforcement cell, GHMC-, Hyde-rabad.} 5. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL^{ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High} Court for the State of Telanqana^{at Hyderabad} [OUT]

¶73