Allowed

A. Vidyasagar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jul 2025WP/46035/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside a fresh charge memo issued in 2017 regarding a lecturer's unauthorized absence, ruling that it violated the principle of double jeopardy. A prior disciplinary enquiry had already been concluded on identical facts in 2010. The petitioner was directed to conduct the earlier enquiry within three months.

What did the court decide?

Charge memo dated 24-07-2017 set aside; respondent to conduct enquiry under earlier report within 3 months; petitioner no longer promoted.

A. Vidyasagar Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[3300 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos: 29033 OF 2017 and 46035 of 20'18

¶8

WP No: 29033 OF 2017

¶9

Between:

¶10

A. Vidya Sagar, S/o. Sri A. Subrahmanyam, aged 52^years, Occ Lecturer, J.N. Govt. Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-sO0 013,^PJo. H.No.12-2-72514, Plot No.4, P and T Colony, Rethi Bowli, [,4ehdipatnam, Hyderabad-S0O 028

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad The Commissioner of Technical Educations, Govt. of Telangana, BRKR Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 063.

¶14

3 The Principal, J.N. Govt. Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-S0O 013.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 any writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring leading upto and including the Charge Memo No.G2|312O5/2O16 dt.24-07-2017 by the 2nd Respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia besides the AP Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1991 and various decisions of this Court and Apex Court and by nullifying the same direct the respondents to regularize the^period of absence in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 214 dt. 03-09-1996 with all consequential and attendant benefits by treating the^period from 011O712005 to¹ 6/06/2009 should be treated as waiting period for^posting orders under FR⁽⁹⁾ Rule (3)

¶17

;: _-i=;'

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017^(WPMP. NO: 36112 0F 20171

¶19

Petition under section 151^{CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} suspend all further^{proceedingsinpursuance ofthe ChargeMemo} No.G2l31205/2016 dt. 24-072017^{by the 2nd Respondent pending disposal of the} above writ petition

¶20

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017^{(WPMP.NO:36113 0F 2017)}

¶21

Petition under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} 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 Senior Lecturer in the ECE in Zone-VI as^{per his seniority whilegiving} posting orders

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶23

Between:

¶24

The State of Telangana, rep. by^{its Principal Secretary, HigherEducation,} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶25

The Commis6ioner of Technicat^{Educations,Govt. of Telangana,BRKR} Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500^063.

¶26

The Principal, J.N.^G'ovt. Polytechnic,^{Ramanthapur,Hyderabad-SOO0'13.}

¶27

,..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶28

AND

¶29

A. Vidya Sagar, S/o. Sri A. Subrahmanyam,^{aged 52 ye19' Occ Lecturer,-JN.} Govt. Polytethnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-s00^{01 3, No. H.No.12-2-72514,} Plot No.4, P and T Colony, Rethi Bowli,^{Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-S00 028}

¶30

pet t on under sect on 1bi cPC pray ns ;Tr:J::::::::':J:: in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleased to} vacate the interim order Dated: 30-01-2018 in W.P.M.P.No.36112 of^{2017 in} W.P.No.29033 of 2017 and dismiss the Writ Petition

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. B. VIJAYA KUMAR

¶32

Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. B. ANNAPOORNA, GP FOR SERVICES I

¶33

WP NO: 46035 OF 2018

¶34

Between:

¶35

A- Vidyasagar, S/o Sri A. Subrahmanyam, aged 53 years, Occ Lecturer in ECE, Govt. Polytechnic, lsmailkhanpet, Sanga Reddy Dist.

¶36

...PETITIONER

¶37

AND

¶38

1 The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶39

2 The Commissioner of Technical Education, Govt. of Telangana, Vidya Bhavan, Dargah Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion as Senior Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering against the vacancy at Jawaharlal Nehru Govt. Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, though the Petitioner is Sl.No. at 1 of the seniority list of the Lecturers in ECE as arbitrary, illegal, and consequently direct the 2 respondent to promote the Petitioner against the existing vacancy at Jawaharlal Nehru Govt. Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶42

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 2no Respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotion as Senior Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering against the vacancy at Jawaharlal Nehru Govt. Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. B. VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. B. ANNAPOORNA, GP FOR SERVICES I

¶44

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶45

-€,s,,,:J. ,// ,/ ,/ /

¶46

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶47

WRIT PETITION Nos.29O33 of 2OL7 and 46O35 of 2018

¶48

COMMON ORDER:

¶49

In vier,v of the commonality of the issue and^grievance, these Writ Petitions are analogously heard and taken up^for disposal by way of this common order.^{For discussion, the facts} in W.P.No.29O33 of 2Ol7 are taken as reference.

¶50

Petitioner^joined the Department of Technical Education as Associate Lecturer in Electronics &^{Communication} Engineering (ECE) on 3O.O7.1987 at Government Polytechnic for Women, Medak, and served continuously luntll 17.O7.2OOO, completing about 13 years of service. On 08.10.1999 and^again on 17.O2.2OO0, petitioner applied for a No Objection^Certificate (NOC) to take up employment abroad under G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996. However, no decision approval or^rejection was communicated, though several other lecturers, both^senior and^junior, were granted permission or regularized^upon return. Some who left without^permission were also allowed^to rejoin. While posted at Q.0. Government^Polytechnic, Hyderabad, the petitioner went on leave from 16.08.2000 to

¶51

NBKJ W.P. No.29033 of2Ol7 and bat.h

¶52

¶53

30.06.2005, submitting applications regularly. Earlier leave from 18.07.2000 to i5.08.2000 was sanctioned, and salary was paid. A charge memo dated O4.O2.2OO2 was issued but not served. A Show-Cause Notice dated 03.04.2002 was later issued, to which petitioner replied on 17.06.2002. Petitioner reported for dut5r on Ol.O7 .2OO5, but posting orders were issued only on 17.06.2009, after a delay of four years. The Department mistakenly treated petitioner's leave as exceeding five years, although it was not. As per G.O.Ms,No.214, Government permission is required only if leave exceeds hve years. Following Memo dated 31.O3.2OO7, the Department was advised to follow APCS (CCA) Rules. A Charge Memo dated 08.12.2OO8 alleged unauthorized absence from 18.07.2000 and petitioner replied on 06.01.2009. The Enquiry Officer's report dated 06.09.2010, communicated uide Memo dated 23.1O.2O1O, concluded that no official decision had been conveyed on the petitioner's leave or NOC requests. Despite ongoing correspondence, a fresh Charge Memo dated 24.07.2017 was issued, referring to 21 documents which were not supplied. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed challenging the fresh charge Memo dated 24.07.2OI7.

¶54

NBKJ W.P, No.29O33 of2017^andbatch

¶55

¶56

Heard Sri B.Vijaya Kumar,^{learned counsel forthe} petitioner ald Smt B.Annapoorna,^{learned Assistant} Government Pleader for^{Services-I. Perusedthe record.}

¶57

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner made submissionson} the lines of Writ Affidavit^{and contendsthat petitionerwas} already served with a^{show-cause notice dated O3.O4.2OO2} '^to which a reply was submitted on^{17.06.2002. Latet, a charge} Memo dated 08.12.2008^{was issued, followed by a full enquiry,} resulting in a report dated^{O6.09.2010. Without settingaside} or concluding the earlier^{proceedings,issuinga fresh charge} Memo on the same set of^{facts amountsto double jeopardy'} which is impermissible under^{administrative law ald contrar5r} to fair procedure.^{Therefore, prays this Courtto set aside the} fresh Charge Memo^{dated24.07.2017.}

¶58

4.'t . It is further^{submittedthat the charge Memo dated} O8.12.2OO8 is based on^{the erroneous assumptionthat} petitioner overstayed beyond the^{permissibleleave period.In} fact, petitioner^{proceeded on sanctionedleave from 18.07.20OO}

¶59

4 NBKJ W.P. No.29033 of20U and batch

¶60

to 15.O8.2000 (for which salary was paid), and further leave from 16.08.2000 to 30.06.2005, making the total period less than five years. As per G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, prior Government permission is required only where leave exceeds hve years. Hence, the petitioner's absence carnot be construed as unauthorized or in violation of service rules. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the charge Memo dated 08.12.2OOa also be set aside.

¶61

Learned Government Pleader filed a counter-affidavit stating that petitioner had admitted that during his sanctioned leave period, he went abroad for a few years to meet certajn hnancial obligations. However, he did so without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, which is a violation of service rules. The Enquiry Ofhcer, in his report dated 08.09.2010, found that the charge of unauthorized absence was proved, stating that petitioner had left the country without prior approval. At the same time, the report also acknowledged that the Department had not communicated any rejection of the petitioner's leave applications or issued any directive requiring him to report back to duty. Subsequenfly, the l"t respondent,

¶62

NBKJ w.P. No.29033 of 2017^and hatch

¶63

-//

¶64

'1,1,

¶65

through Memo dated^{29.O8.2O1,2,directed the 2"d respondent} to frame charges afresh ald to^{enstlre that no procedural} lapses occurred in the conduct^{of the enquiry under Rule 20 of} the APCS (CCA) Rules,^{1991. Following these instructions, the} 2.d respondent issued a^{fresh charge Memodated 24.07.2017,} initiating disciplinary^{proceedings. It is furthersubmitted that} the petitioner's contention that^{only his case was denied} favorable consideration is factually^{incorrect.Severalother} similarly placed lecturers,^{includingseniors,were also not} permitted to go abroad or rejoin service^{due to the shortageof} ECE lecturers, which was affecting^{the academicinterest of} students. Hence, no discrimination^{was shownto the petitioner.} Moreover, after applying for hatf-pay^{leave from18.07.2000 to} 15.08.2000, petitioner did not^{report back to ofhce,despite} several instructions and reminders^{issued by the department.} Crucially, he also failed to disclose that^{he was residingabroad,} which indicates a mala f,rde intention to^{avoid future} disciplinary consequences. This conduct^amountsto unauthorized absence and is in^{clear violation of Para 5(10) of} G.O.Rt.No.214, dated 03.O9.1996, which mandates that:

¶66

¶67

NBX,.I W.P. No.29033 of2017 and hatch

¶68

¶69

"T'le Gouentment seruant should obtain specific perrnission from the Gouentment before h.e undertakes ony emplog ment abroad. "

¶70

While disciplinarSr proceedings were ongoing, the petitioner fiIed WPMP No.36113 of 2Ol7 in W.p.No.29O33 of 2017, requesting promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer in ECE, Zone-VI and this Court, by its interim order dated l4.O9.2O17 , directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.O8.2077 in accordance with law. The petitioner also filed LA.No.1 of 2018 in W.p.No.46035 of 2O78, seeking promotion against a vacancy at JNGp, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. In view of the Court,s interim directions, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer and posted at GIOE, Secunderabad. In conclusion, since the charges framed against the petitioner were found to be proved, the action of the 2"a respondent in initiating disciplinary proceedings based on the directions of the 1"t respondent is valid, lawful, ald in accordance with service rules and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions and vacate the said interim orders

¶71

IISK,J W.P- Nc,.29033^{oi 2017 andbrlch}

¶72

¶73

¶74

On perusal^{of the record, it is clear that the charge N{emo} dated 08.^{\2.2OOA was followed by areguiar dcpartmental} enquiry, culminating^{in an enquiry reportdal.eci 06'O9 20 10'} While the charge^{lr'as held to be proved,the trnquiry Officer also} recorded that^{the Department had faiLed to conemunicate its} decision on^{the petitioner's leave ar.rd NOC applications and had} not issued^{any direction requiringhim to reporl irack for dr.rt1.'} Despite the conclusion^{of those proceedinqs,a fresh chargc} Memo dated^{24.07 .2017 was issueclon the sameset oi facts'} without setting^{aside or annullingthe earliercnqulr)-'Thc} issuance of a^{second charge Memo insuch circ''rmstances} violates the^{principles of natural justice and atnountsto dor-ib1e} jeopardy, u'hich is impermissible^{under settLecl principlesof} administrative law.^{Once an enquiry has been condt-icied at-riia} finding recorded,^{the respondents cannot lndehniteivrccpcn} disciplinary^{proceedings on identical grounds liurat be ftir'ihel} noted that^{petitioner was promoted tothe post of Senior} Lecturer in^{pursuant of interimdirections of this Court ard} there is no^{material on record to suggest that he supprcssed} any relevant^{facts while seeking such promotion- Accordingly'}

¶75

8 NBK,J W.P- No.29033of2017 and batch

¶76

this Court is of the considered view that the charge Memo dated 24.O7 2017 is unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside.

¶77

7 . Accordingly, rhe Charge Memo dated 24.O2 .2017 is hereby set aside and the Writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to conduct enquiry with regard to the charge Nlemo dated OB.l2.2OOB rvithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate order-s in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶78

I\4iscellaneous appiications, if any pending, shall stand

¶79

ciosed

¶80

Sdi- K. AMMAJI PUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Higher Education,^{Secretariat, T.S-Hyderaba} 2. The Comhrissioner oi Teihnical^{Educations, Govt. of Telangana,BRKR} Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500^063.

¶85

The Principal, J.N. G-o\t. Polytechnic,^{RamanthapulHyderabad-SOO013.} 4. One CC td SRl. P. B. VIJAY^{KUMAR, Advocate} [oPUC] S. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l,^{HighCourtfor the Stateof Telangana, at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶86

Two CD Copies BM

PVL

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310712025

.r.-, ,: , ,:. r'; a t -.\<br>,4- r.)\t . (
r.{.
/'.."
i ) -l) 02 sEP 2025
a.
2017 And And 46035 Of 2018
WRIT PETITIONSPETITIONS
w-
u_)
t) )?

¶91

COMMON ORDER

¶92

Writ Petition Nos: 29033 Of 2017 And And⁴⁶⁰³⁵ Of²⁰¹⁸

¶93

DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONSPETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS

A. Vidyasagar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Vidyasagar 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

Dr. K.Anand Singh, S/o Late R.Kalyan Singh Vs The Professor Jayashanakar Telangana State Agricultural University

Chinthala , Chinthacheruvu Laxmi and 3 Ors. Vs Ch.Dharma Reddy and Anr.

Ramavath Nirmala, Vs The State of Telangana

Sangam Maraiah, Nizamabad Vs Sri Anjayya Hanumayya Koyadwar and Another

Ghulam Dastagir Vs The State of Telangana

B. Gopalakrishna, Vs A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank