K. Naveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in thq} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction,^{particularly in the nature of Writ of} Mandamus, declaring the Order of the^{2nd respondent passed in R. No'} 3O25N3IV2.2OO7 dated^{13-01 -2022,as confirmed in the Appeal in MemoNo.} Sg3/TrVig t2O23 dated 19-10-2024^{issuedby the 1st respondent imposing the i} punishment of stoppage of two annual^grade increments^{with cumulative effect} as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional^{and consequently set asidethe same} and further direct the Respondents^{to considerthe case of the Petitionerto the} post of Administrative Officer (A.O).

¶16

r.l:.-. .1._ i ,,!L,.1 -.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

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 Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer (A.O) in the ensuing DPC meetings during the pendency of the Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. MAHADEV ANYARAMBHATLA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVTCES I

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

5

a

a

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK

¶27

TVRIT PETITION No .34L57 0F 20.24

¶28

Dated 12tu ember. 2025,

Between:

K. Naveen Kumar

Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretar5r, Transport, Roads & Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & another

¶34

Respondents

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Seeking to declare the order passed by respondent No.2 in R.No.3025lV3 /V2.2OO7 , dated 13.01 .2022, as confirmed by respondent No.1 in Appeal Memo No.593/Tr.Yig/2023, dated 19.10.2024, irnposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same and further to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of Administrative officer (A.o), the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶37

r ,* --$

¶38

PK, J w_34^{157 _2024}

¶39

2

¶40

2l Heard Sri Mahadev Anyarambhatla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant at Driving Test Track, Nagole, Hyderabad, during a surprise check conducted by the ACB officials, the petitioner was allegedly found in shortage of Rs.242/- in the Government cash in respect of sale of holograms and allowed two private persons inside the cabin for collecting illegal gratifrcation than the prescribed fee and that there was unaccounted cash of Rs.6410/- found in the cabin kept in a casserole. To the said charges, the^petitioner filed a reply denying the charges. However, without considering the same, an Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Based on the said Enquiry Report, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 13.01.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and the sarne was confirmed by respondent No.1 in appeal vide impugned Memo dated 19.1O.2O24.

a

PK, J w_34L57_2024

a

'r

o

J

3.1) Learned counsel has contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected without assigning any valid reasons and as the appeal is a substantial right, the Appellate Authority is supposed to consider each and every contention raised by the petitioner and arrive at its own independent finding in respect of each charge \Mith reference to the evidence placed. However, the Appellate Authority did not consider any one of the submissions made by the petitioner and as such the order of the Appellate Authorit5r is liable to be set aside as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel has further contended that during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Administrative ofhcer should have been considered by adopting sealed cover procedure. Further, the. punishment imposed is already executed as the period of two years is over. However, relying upon such punishment, the case of the petitioner for promotion is not being considered by the respondents, which is highly illegal- and arbitrary.

¶49

3.21 Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the dates of events and submitted that the surprise check was

4

PK, J wp_34157 _2024

I

conducted on 18.04.2007, departmental proceedings were directed to be initiated on 06.11.2008, charge memo was issued on 26.ll.2008 for the incident occurred L8.O4.2OOZ, and the petitioner has submitted his explanation immediately thereafter. But, without considering the same properly, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he concluded the enquiry with a delay of g years and submitted his report on 30. 1 1.2O 16. Two years thereafter, respondent No.2 has issued notice on O4.I2.2OIa and called for the explanation of the petitioner, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. However, the impugned punishment order was passed on 13.01.2022 by respondent No.2. Therefore, the entire departmental proceedings are vitiated and liable to be set aside on the ground of delay. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the punishment brder dated 13.01.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and the order in appeal dated 19.lO.2O24 passed by respondent No. 1. Reliance has been placed orl p.V. Mahadevan o. Managing Dlrectar, T.N. Houslng Boardt.

¶54

'^{(2005)6 SCC636}

¶55

5 PK, J wP_34L57_2024

¶56

o

¶57

Per contra, the learned Government^pleader has submitted that consequent to surprise check conducted by ACB oflicials over RTA, Driving Test Track, Nagole, Hyderabad, on 18.04.2007, the Government in Memo No.5352/Vig.III LlOT-2, dated 06.11.2008, has requested respondent No.2 to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner and others. Accordingly, charges were framed against the petitioner and others vide Charge Memo No.3025/v3/2oo7, dated 26.1L2008, and after careful examination of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry officer has been appointed for conducting a common enquiry against all the delinquents. After conducting the detailed enquiry, the Enquiry officer has submitted his report holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved vide Enquiry Report dated 30.11.2016 and the sarne was, communicated to the petitioner vide office Memo dated 04.12.2018 and on receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner has submitted his further representation. The Disciplinary Authority, after careful examination of the further representation and on receipt of the instructions of the Government, has imposed. the penalty of "Stoppage of Two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect"

n

/

,

6 PK, J wp_34157_2024

¶62

(

¶63

vide Proceedings^{No.3025/V3/V2/2007-1,} dated 13.01 .2022. Aggrieved by^{the said punishment,} the petitioner has filed an appeal before^respondent No.l. After careful examination of the material on^{record, respondent} No.l has rejected the said appeal vide Government Memo No.593/Tr.Vig/2023, dated 19.L0.2024, obserwing that^{the penalty imposed} is adequate. Therefore, the respondents^{are justified} in imposing the punishment of 'stoppage of Two Annual^{Grade lncrements} with Cumulative Effect' for the proven charges and respondent No.l has rightly dismissed the appeal. Therefore,^{the learned} Government Pleader has contended that there^{are no merits} in^the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same.

¶64

This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and^pemsed the material on record.

¶65

A perusal of the record discloses that admittedly the departmental^proceedings were initiated vide charge memo No.3025/v3/2007 dated 26.rL 2008 for the incident pertaining to the year 2oo7 and concluded by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent No.2 herein uide impugned punishment order dated

t

7 PK, J w_34t57_2024

n

13.01.2022 i.e. after a lapse of L4 years. The Honble supreme court, on number of occasions, has deprecated the practice of the authorities in delaying the conclusion of departmental proceedings and held that the respondents cannot take their own time to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. Some of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court are referred hereunder.

¶70

6.1) In P.V. Mq.hq.deuq.n's c@se (referred supra), the Hon,ble supreme court has held t]r.at allowing the respond.ent to proceed. further^{with the departmental proceedings} at this distance of time witl be uery prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping q. higher gouernment officiat under charges of corntption and. disputed. integritg would cause unbearable mental agony arud. distress to the official concented. The protracted. disciprinary enquiry against a gouernment employee should, therefore, be auoided not only in tLrc interests of the gouernment emploaee but in pubtic interest and. q.lso in tlTe interests of inspiring confidence in the miruds of the gouemment lmeloaees.^{At this stage, it is necessaryto draw the} qtrtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appeilant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agong and. sufferings of

I

t

tl

I

PK, J wp-34 157 2024

(

the appellant due to the protracted dbciplinary proceedings would be much more than tle punishment. For the mistakes ammitted bg the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.

¶78

6.21 Similarly, in Stcte of A.P. a. N. Radhaklshanz, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the essence of the matter is that the court hos to take into consideration all tlrc releuant factors and to balance and u.teigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and" honest ad.ministration that the disciplinary proceedings shoutd be allowed to terminate after delay particularly uthen the delag is abnormal and there i,s no explanation for the delag. Th.e delin4uent emplogee hn"s a rtght that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiouslg and lle i.s not made to undergo mental agonA and. also monetary loss tahen these are unnecessarilg prolonged wtthout any fault on his part in delaging the proceedings. In consideing uthether the delag has uitiated the disctplinary proccedings the court has to consider ttLe nahre of charge, its complexity and on tphat account the delag has ocanrred. If the detay i"s unexplained prejudice to the delinquent emplogee is u.trit large on , (1998) 4 SCC ls4

9

PK, J wp_34157_2024

, )

,,/

the fact of it. It could" also be seen as to how much the disctptinary authoritg i.s serious in pursuing the charges againsf its emplogee It is the basic principle of ad.ministratiue justice that an officer entrusted with a partianlar job hq.s to perform his duties honestlg, efficiently and in qccordqnce with the rules. If he d.euiqtes from this path rrc i"s to suffer a penaltg prescribed. Normallg, disciptinary proceedings should be allowed to take thetr course as per releuant rules but then d.elay defeats justice. Delay causes prejud.ice to the charged officer urtless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the d.elay in conducting the dbciplinary proceedings. [Jltimately, the court is to bqlance these two dtuerse conditions.

¶84

6.3) Further, in secretary, Ministry of Defence u. pro.bash chand.rq. Mirdhas, the Hon'ble supreme^'court has held that the delay in initiating or concluding enquiry proceedings causes prejudice to the delinquent; as such the same is also a ground for quashing the charge itself. 7l In the instant case, admittedly, as stated supra, the respondents took L4 years time to conclude the departmental

a

\

3 (2OL2l l1 SCC s65

(

l0

PK, J wp_34t57_2024

I

proceedings. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon,ble supreme court in the above referred judgments, this court is of the considered view that the inordinate delay caused in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the petitioner caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and therefore liable to be set aside.

¶93

For the afore-mentioned reasons, the impugned punishment order dated 13.01.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and the order in Appeal passed by respondent No.1 vide order dated lg.lo.2o24 are set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer in accordance with law.

¶94