Partly allowed

K. Sampath Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2025WP/32054/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the state to reinstate the petitioner, a suspended Sub-Registrar, into service within two weeks, subject to the pendency of ongoing disciplinary proceedings involving charges issued following allegations of irregularities in computer records.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service within two weeks from the order date, subject to the final outcome of the pending disciplinary proceedings.

K. Sampath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^3304I

¶2

I l

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE S LA N G A NA ","",i^{lif,:liii",i,rE} 'TiA"+,ljr..X.rro.l[ffi nl4rro;3",.

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUS

¶6

TICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Between: wRITPETITIoN NO:3 054 OF 24

¶7

K. Sampath Kumar, S/o

¶8

Registrar-, chandraiah' Aged 4q ,ra"r alate vears' occ Joint sub-

¶9

¶10

H.No.8-7-178, o,o ,o*unollpension)' attv, secunderabrolui#^o" oo irri- r'*chal-Malkajsiri, R/o

¶11

AND "'PEflrtoNER

¶12

1. The state of Telangan Revenue (n.gi.trrtionl-1":^{o' its Principal} secr

¶13

2 The re ra nsa n a s t"t" su"rullo .t l"' Hyderabad.^o"*" ;; ";;:r'#H il:'#" t' ""rr,.""""]quretariat Generar orResis

¶14

Department, ;#"1:::ector

¶15

I"rorrr,^{rrvo.r"ora-so'l"t'"'"'n*",'*"n ;l;::;i^l# ;:T:.}

¶16

J. The Deputy lnspector Ge ratl Disciptinary Authoritl

¶17

Resistration ; ;;;^":"

¶18

Nampary, Hyaeraoq6-5qffi "n'"'i^*"r'#;H ];ff::f :';H:t'

¶19

4 I he Depury lnspector of C .Ex-officro^,.orio,n- il:::l:' or Resiskation and stamps, Hyderabad and r-ryoeragao-soio"'.Y^{' r\egrstration Bhavan,} M.J Roao, Namppry,

¶20

5 fhe District Registrar, Distr Medcha r r;;;#tstrict Registrar office, Medcha t -M atkalgi riDistrict,

¶21

"RESP.NDENT'

¶22

"RESP.NDENT' . petitign under Article ):: 226 nr ts^ of the constitutior crrcumstancg$ stated in affidavit,,;;^';'"# of tndia pravins that in the preased ro issue , w,t, L order or onu.t,on';=olJ,:: .l1u^{,,rn court} may be rn the nature of Mandamus

¶23

declaring continuation of suspension of the petitioner after passing initial order of suspension dt. 2810412023 in proceedings No. G/63/2023 after issuing,charge Memo dt.121612023 and passing and extending the suspension orders d1.15t11t2023 and further extension dt.17 tsl2o24 without considering the fact of^a issuance of charge Memo and without finalizing the disciplinary proceedings, without paying subsistence allowance after lapse of 3 months as illegal and arbitrary and violatgs of Artiqle "!4, i6 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently declare that the petitioner is entifled for service from the date of issuance of article of charge and ontitled for payment of subsistence allowance with enhanced allowance$ @ 75 percentage in the interest of justica.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

Petition undgr Seqtion 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filgd in support of the petition, the High cou( may be pleased to issue an interim direction directing the respondents to forthwith re-rnstate the petitioner into service dqly sqqpen(lng the initial orders of suspension dt.2B 4 2Q23 issued in proceedings l!o. Q163/!p23 charge Memo dt 12to6tzo23 and consequential extension orders dt 15.11.2023 and 17.05.2024 pending disposql of the above Writ Petition.

¶26

IA NO: OF 24

¶27

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of [[re petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue directions tq tl]e re.srpon(ents to review the orders of sugpension 9f the petitioner by the oeputy lnspector Geng6al of stamps and Registration, Medchal-Malkajgiri d|28.4.2023 qs per fhe terms and conditions of G O.Ms.No.86 GAD dt.08.03.1994 keeping in vigw of the articles of charge dt.12.6.2023 R/w Repty dt.2B.6.ZO23 pending disposal of the writ petltion.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitionqr: SRI P.V.RAMANA

¶29

Counsql for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-l

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

THE HON^{,BLE SRI WSTICENAMAVARAPURAJESI{WAR RAO} WRIT PETITION No.32O54 of 2o24

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

Heard Mr.^{P.V. Ramana,learned coirnsel for the petitioner,} and learned^{GovernmentPleaderfor Services-l appearingfor the} respondents.^{Perused the material availableon record.}

¶34

The^{present writ petitionis filedseekinga declaration that the} action of^{the respondents in continuingthe suspensionof the} petitioner after^{passing initial order of suspensiondated 28'04 '2023} in Proceedings^{No'G/63/2023, and' subsequently extehdedon} 15.11.2023^{and 17.05.2024, even after issuanceof a chargememo} dated 12.06.2023,^{without concludingthe disciplinary proceedings} or payment^{of subsistence allowance beyond the statutory periodof} three months.

¶35

Learned^{counselfor the petitioner submitsthat the petitioner} was initially-^{appointed as a Junior Assistant and subsequently} promoted to the^{post of SeniorAssistant and then as Sub-Registrar} Grade-II in^{tJ:e Registrationand Stamps Departmentin September,} 2018. He^{was posted as Joint Sub Registrar-Il, Medchal-Malkajgiri} District Pursuant^{to G.O. No 317 dated lO'Ol'2O22' According to} the^{proceedingsissuedby the Inspector General of RegistraLionand} Stamps dated^{12.09.1997,the duties and responsibilities of the} Record^{Keeperare clearly defined. Despite the petitioner having no}

f ( j i

E*.+ri,- i^:

wP_32054 2024 RRN, J

control over the record room, a show cause notice dated O3.O4.2O23 was issued on the ground that certain irregularities and unauthorized entries in computer records were fotrnd in the record room. Subsequently, by order dated 28.O4.2O23, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent. After a lapse of more than a month, a charge memo was issued on 12.06.2023. ln the same order, he was instructed not to leave headquarters and was granted subsistence allowance equivalent to half of his pay.

¶41

karned counsel for the petitioner further submits that articles of charges were framed based on the reports dated 31.03.2023 and 22.04.2023 of the District Registrar, MedchalMalkajgiri. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the charges on 28.06.2023, followed by an additional explanation on O6.1L.2O23. However, the 2nd respondent, while reviewing the suspension. order on 15.11.2023, failed to consider the issuance of the charge memo and other relevant material. It is further submitted that the petitioner made a representation dated 04.OI.2024 stating the pendency of disciplinar5r proceedings, denial of charges, and also referred to Government circulars requiring timely conclusion of such proceedings. He accordingly requested for revocation of his suspension.

wP 32054_2024 RRN, J

When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the charge memo dated 12.06.2023 is still pending enquiry a,d no final decision.has been taken in the disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that as per letter dated, 3O.I2.2O24 beaing No.G 163 /2023, the suspension order was not extended beyond 22.10.2024. Thus, the petitioner continues to remain under prolonged suspension from 2g.O4.2023 till date.

¶46

6' Having considered the facts and circumstalces of the case, and in view of the letter dated 30.12.2024, respondent No.2 is directed to revoke the suspension order dated 2g.O4.2023 and reinstate the petitioner into service. However, subject to the outcome of the disciplinaqr proceedings. The said exercise sha[ be completed and appropriate orders be passed within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

7 . With the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTIJl(OFFICER

To,

'l . Principal Secretary tg Gqvernment, Revenue (Registration and Stamps) Departpent, Dr BR Ambedkar Telanqana State Secretariat, Hyderabad, The TelqrJganq,

¶56

¶57

2 The Commissioner and lnspector General of Registration and^gt36p5 Department, Govqrnment of Telangana, Registration Bhavan, fvl.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-50000 1.

¶58

J The Deputy lnspeqtor General/ Disciplinary Authority, Medchal-Malkajgiri Registration and Etamps Depa(ment, Registration Qhavan, M.J. Road, ttlampally, Hyderabqd-50p001

¶59

4 The Deputy Inspector^of General of figgistratign and Stamps, flyderabad and Ex-Officio^{Nodal D!9} , RPgistration Bhavan, M.J. Road, Nampplly, HyderaIgd-Q00001

¶60

5 The District Registlgl District Registrar Office, MedShal-Malkajgiri District, Medchql Touln, Hyderabgd

¶61

6 One CQ to SRI P !,RA|\r!ANA A{vocale IOPUQ]

¶62

7 Iwo 9Cs^to FP^{FQB SERVICE$-|,High Cou( for} the Sl?te of Tetangana. tourl

¶63

T-wo CQ Copies

BGS

{l ,l

HIGH COURT

DATED: 17 t04t2025

()( r Ei4
'r-
,it'.. '7
,/. ,. .
;i i' .$
.\ I
c
i, i $e !.:
ORDER ll,i' " s-$.
,..._ ?-
WP.No.32054 of 2024 ,. '' 'riaira {
_:i-'---r '.,

¶70

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

<br>\Y

K. Sampath Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sampath 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Padmavathi Vs The State of Telangana

K. Ramana Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Bollam Shakariah Vs The State of Telangana

C. Prameela Devi, Vs The State of Telangana

B.Suvarna Vs The State of Telangana

Lokoti Veeranna Vs The State of Telangana