Mohd. Zaheeruddin Vs The State of Telengana

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the Order dated 2511112025 in w.p. No. 24449 of 202s on the file of the High court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mohd. Zaheerud_dr!, s/o Mohd. Rukumuddin, Age.6g yrs, occ. Govt. eazi R/o H.No. 19-4-219r2lB , Ghouse Nagar, ruawiu'si-niokintb, niiJrioro.

¶12

...PETITIONER/APPE LLANT

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Welfare Dept, Secretariat Hyderabad.^{f:plgrlq,,.Rgp.Py .its Principat Secretaryto Govt Minority}

¶15

2- The Dist collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad Dist. Hyderabad.

¶16

.. . RESPONDE NTS/RESPONDE NTS

¶17

The Revenue Divisional officer, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad.

¶18

Qazi Ahmed Shut?uddin euadri, s/o. Late eazi Ghousuddin euadri, Aged . about.4! yegrs, occ. Govt eazi R/o H.No. 1g-4-27g1a,lillz, ntrc'coTonv, Nawab Sahab Kunta, Hyderabad.

¶19

Qazi Ahmed Rafiuddin^euadri, s/o. Late eazi Ghousuddin euadri, aged lPout^{j1 yegp, occ. Govt. Qazi Maisaramzone (p) Rvo ta:{-qiiiNAis,} Phool-Bagh, Near Masj id-e-Abubakar Siddiq (rz), Hyrieiabad.

¶20

$egp91!_e$s^{No.4 and s are impteaded as per Gourt} order dated 25.11.2025 in l.A. No.2l2021.l

¶21

Qbzi Azizullah osmani, s/o. ASF samdani, Aged about (56) years, eazi Musheerabad zone. R/o. 1-4-333, samdani street,' MtisheeiabadHyderabad.

¶22

Qazi Noman Ahmed, s/o. lrfan Ahmed, Qazi Mittuguda zone, Rl/o, 12.11.1 Occ. Govt. Bholakpur, Aged about (49) years. Occ. Govt. Qazi, Amber nagar, Warisguda, Secunderabad, Hyderabad.

¶23

Qazi Mohammed Muqtar, S/o. Mohammed lshaq, aged about (42) years, occ. Govt.,Qazi Ameerpet Zone, R/o. 8-3-2341299, Laxmi Narbsihiha Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶24

Qazi Mohanmed Muqtar Ahmed, S/o M.A. Shokoor, Occ. Govt. Qazi, khirtabad Zone, Aged about (45) years, Fyo. Plot no,1171 Banjara Nagar Borabanda, Hyderabad.

¶25

1O.Qazi Mohammed. Ghouse Shah Quadri, S/o Mohammed Sardar Quadri, Aged about (50) years, Occ. Govt. Qazi Asifnagar Zone. Ryo. 131 12351309'1 1 1 41 28, Kishan Nagar, Asif nagar Hyderabad.

¶26

11.Qazi Syed Aijaz ullah Quadri, S/o. Syed Qasim, Aged about (50) years, Occ. Govt. Qazi, Golconda Zone, Fi/o. H.No. 9-4-1331, Ground fio-or, Chabra Enclave, 7 Tombs road, Toli chowki, Hyderabad.

¶27

(Belpgl4.elts No.6 to 11 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 25.11.2025 in l.A. No.3/2025.

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

lA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶30

Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order daled 2s11112025 passed by the learned single Judge in w.P. No. 2444912025 pending the above writ Appeal as otherwise I will suffer irreparable loss and damage which cannot be compensated in any mode in the interest of justice.

¶31

lA NO: 3 OF 2026

¶32

Petition under Section 1si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the operation of G.o. Rt. No. 6s MWD dated ozlo}t2o2s issued by the 1st Respondent pending the above writ Appeal as othenrvise I will suffer irreparable loss and damage which cannot be compensated in any mode in the interest of justice.

¶33

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A.M.eURESHI, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. SRI SULTAN MOHIUDDIN

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent No..t to 3: SR! ANANTHULA RAVINDER, GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI A.VENKATESH, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. SRI P.PANDU RANGA REDDY

¶36

Gounsel^{for the Respondent No'6 to 11: SRIV'M'M'GHARY}

¶37

The^{Court delivered the following:JUDGMENT}

¶38

IN TIIEIIIGII COIIRT^{FORTHE STATDO['TDIII\IGII\IA} AT TIYDERABAD

¶39

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICE SRI APARESiHXIIMARSINGH}

¶40

AND

¶41

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶42

WRIT APPEAL No.9O of^2O26

DATE: ll -o2-2026

BETWEEN:

Mohd. Zaheeruddin

.Appellant

nI{I'

The State of^{Telangana and 1O others}

¶49

.Respondents

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

The present^{writ Appeal,filed under clause 15 of the letters} Patent, arising^{out of the order dated 25.11.2025 renderedby the} learned single^{Judge in w.P.N o.24449 of 2025. By the impugned} order, the learned^{SingleJudge dismissed the said writ petitionfiled} by the appellant^{herein. The said writ petition was ,filed by the} appellanthereintochallengetheillegalityandproprietyofthe removalorderissuedbytheStateGovernmentunderG.o.Rt.No.65 dated 07.O8.2O25.

¶52

Factual^{background (in brieQ}

¶53

2.TheappellantwasappointedasGovernmentAdditionalQazifor Qazzat,QileMohammedNagar'Hyderabad'uideG'O'Ms'No'2dated oT.o2.2ooSunderSection2oftheKazisAct,l8S0(forshort,.the

¶54

..r..

¶55

Act). On O7.O2.2O25, a shor'.r-cause notice was issued proposing his suspension based on allegations that his Naib Qazis w'crc involr,-ed in performing child marriages and other iilegal zrctivities. The notice also referred to a common judgment of this court dated 3o.o9.2o24 in w.P.Nos.38879 of 2022 and 34194 of 2or7, clirccting the Government to takc action under section 2 of th.e Act. The appellant submitted a detailed explanation on 24.o2.2o2s denying the allegations and highlighting that all criminal cases against his |taib eazis had ended in acquittal.

¶56

separately, a show-cause notice dated 03.0g.2023 was issued alleging that the appellant had issued a divorce certificate (Talaq Raj'ah) within the iddat period, contrary to Shariah law. The appellant replied on 22.08.2023 explaining that the certilicate was legally issued under Islamic [,aw.

¶57

4- without conducting any further inquiry, the State Government issued G.o.Rt.No.65 dated, o2.og.2025 removing the appellant from tlre post of Additional Qazi with immediate effect under Section 2 of the Act.

¶58

5' The appellant challenged the rernoval orcler before the learned single Judge on the grounds of violation of natural justice, lack of evidence, absence of misconduct and procedural irregularity. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, primarily holding that:

¶59

a

¶60

::3::

¶61

i. The appellant, being the appointing authori$r^{for Naih} Oazis. was vicariously liable for their acts.

¶62

ii. Show-cause notices were issued, hence principles of natural justice were complied with.

¶63

iii. The allegations of child marriages and illegal divorce certificates constituted misconduct.

¶64

iv. The Government had suflicient material to exercise its power under Section 2 of the Act.

¶65

Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has liled the present writ appeal.

¶66

Heard Sri A.M.Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Sultan Mohiuddin, learned counsel for the^appellant; Sri Ananthula Ravinder, Iearned Government^{Pleaderfor Social} Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3;^{Sri A.Venkatesh, learned} Senior Counsel representing Sri^{P.Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned} counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri^{V.M.M.Chary, learned} counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6^{to 11 and perused the record.}

¶67

Submissions of.learned counsel for the^appellant

¶68

Learned Senior Counsel appearing^{for the appellant advanced} the following submissions:

¶69

i. That the^{removalwas effectedwithout any departmental} inquiry, without^{examination ofwitnesses,and without} supplying documents^{relied upon. The show-can-lse noticesdid}

¶70

::4i:

¶71

not speci$/ the alleged misconduct attributable to the appellant personally.

¶72

ii. The Kazis Act, 1880, does not create vicarious criminal or disciplinary liability. The appellant cannct be held liable for the acts of Naib Qazis appointed under Scction 3, especially rvhen they have been acquitted by criminal Courts

¶73

iii. That the Act does not define 'misconduct'. The allegations of child marriages and issuance of divorce certificates do not amount to misconduct under the Act, especially when the appellant was never an accuseC or charge-sheeted in any criminal case.

¶74

iv. That the show-cause notice dated or.o2.2o2s proposed suspension, but the impugned order directed removal, which is impermissible without a fresh notice and opportunity.

¶75

v. That the learned Single Judge erroneously relied on FIRs police reports and complaints flom rival eazis, vrhich are extraneous, biased and r,vithout evidentiary value.

¶76

vi. That the learned Single Judge ignored the appellant,s detailed explanations, acquittal orders and the report of the Assistant comnrissioner of^police dated L4.oz.2o2l, which explicitly stated that the Naib eazis did not disclcse any involvement of the appellant.

¶77

..s..

¶78

vii. That the learned Single Judge exceeded^{the limitedscope of} judicial review under Article 226 by assuming the truth of allegations and rendering findings of guilt.

¶79

Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents

¶80

Learned Government Pleader for the State and the impleaded

¶81

rival Qazis advanced the following submissions:

¶82

i. That the Government has plenary power under Section 2 of tlr.'e Act to suspend or remove a Qazi guilty of misconduct.

¶83

ii. That the appellant, as the appointing authority of Naib Qazis, is responsible for their acts, especially when they were involved in serious offences, such as, child marriages and illegal divorce certificates.

¶84

iii. That the show-cause notices were issued and the appellant submitted replies, which were considered unsatisfactory.

¶85

iv. That the material on record, including multiple FIRs, police reports and complaints from other Qazis, provided sufficient basis fo, it " Government to conclude that the appellant was unfit to continue in office.

¶86

v. The learned Single Judge correctly applied the Doctrine of Vicarious Liability and upheld the removal order in the interest of public moralit5r and governance. Thus, the writ^petitionwas rightly dismissed and no interference is^warranted.

¶87

::6::

¶88

trVe have taken note of the respective c6ntentions^{urged and} perused the material on record.

¶89

Considerition by this Court

¶90

It is pertinent to note that as per Section 2 of the Act, it emporvers the State Government to appoint, suspend, or remove a Qazi^{on grounds including misconduct in the executionof his office.} The provision does not deline 'misconduct', nor does it prescribe any procedure for inquiry. However, the absence of a statutory procedure does not absolve the State from complying with the fundamental principles of natural justice, especially when the removal entails serious civil consequences.

¶91

It is to be noted that the cornerstone of a-dministrative fairness is adherence to the principle of audi alteram parTem, which mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard. However, in the present case:

¶92

the show-cause notice dated O7.O2.2O25 made a vague and omnibus reference to an alleged involvement of Naib eazis in child marriages on the basis of an ACP's report. significantly, the notice did not attribute any specific act, omission, or misconduct to the appellant individually, nor did it disclose the precise allegations requiring rebuttal.

¶93

No proper departmental inquiry was conducted^{prior to the} removal. The appellant was not afforded a^reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the specific^charges. lll. The appellant's detailed reply, along with the^documentary material including orders of acquittal and^{police reports} exonerating him of any wrongdoing,^{was summarilyrejected} without recording any reasons.

¶94

lv The show-cause notice proposed the lesser^{penalty of} 'suspension', the final order^{imposed the extreme penalty of} 'removal' from service, which carries far^{graver civil} consequences. This enhancement of punishment^{was effected} without issuing any fresh notice or affording an additional opportunity of hearing, thereby vitiating the decision-making process. The relevant portion of the show-cause notice dated 07.O2.2O25 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

¶95

Tlrcrefore, Sri Mohd.. Zaheeruddin, Addl. Khq.z| Qile Mohd. Nagaq Hgderabad is directed to Show.Cause, as to whu gou should not be suspended from the post of Addl. Khazi. for holding him reiponsibte for inuoluement of his Niab Khazis for performtng child Marriages and uarious other illegal actiuities and theg have been arrested by uaious Police Stafions and as reported bg the ACP, Falaknltma, South Zone, Hgderabad dated 27-04-2021, and keeping in vieut of ttrc Common Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 30-09-2024 in W.P.Nos.38879 of 2022 and 34194 of 2017, within (15) dags, failing which, it will be construed tha| he ha.s no explanation to offer in the matter and further action uill be initiated based on records and as per the Prouisions of Kazis Act, 7880, and the gaidelines/instructions issued uide G.O.Ms.No.24, Minorities Weifare (Estt. 0 Department, dated 29-0 4-2 02 2.

¶96

(emplwsis supplied)

¶97

::8::

¶98

In our considered view the learned single Judge erred in holding that the mere issuance of a show-cause notice amounts to compliance with the principles of natural justice. This view is contrary to the established jurisprudence that removal from an oflice carrying civil consequences must be preceded by a fair inquiry conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice.

¶99

L4. Equally apposite is the ratio in state o.,f ortssa u. Dr.(Miss) Binapani Dei and. othersr, wherein the Apex court held that even an administrative order which entails civil consequences must conform to the principles of natural justice. The impugned order of removal, which adversely affects the appeilant's livelihood, status, and reputation, undoubtedly entails serious civil consequences and could not have been passed in breach of these fundamental safeguards.

¶100

It is to be noted that the Act does not envisage any vicarious criminal or disciplinary liability of a Qazi for acts allegedly committed by his Naib Qazis. In the absence of an express statutory provision creating such liability, none can be implied.

¶101

In this regard, the reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the doctrine of respondeat supeiior and general principles of vicarious liability applicable to civil law is misplaced, such doctrines being inapplicable to disciplinary proceedings governed by a special statute like the Kazis Act.

I RIR t96z sc 1269

v

..O..

In the absence of a statutory definition,^{'misconduct' must} necessarily involve a wilful breach of^{duty, moral turpitude, or} conduct unbecoming of the^{office. Mere general and vague allegations,} unsupported by^proof, cannot be equated^{to misconduct.Treating} unsubstantiated and unproven allegations^{as misconductis legally} impermissible.

¶106

It is to be noted that the^{impugned order and the learned Single} Judge's order heavily relied on^{complaints and affidavits Iiled by} Respondent Nos.4 to 11 and FIRs^{and police report. Reliance on such} extraneous material vitiates^{the decision. FIRs and police reportsare} merely allegations and do not constitute^{proof. The learned Single} Judge erred in treating them as^{establishedfacts.}

¶107

In the present case, the conversion^{of the proposed penalty from} 'suspension' to the graver^penaltyof 'removal'^{withoutissuanceof a} fresh or specilic notice violates the^{requirementof specificity in} disciplinary proceedings. Further,^{the impugned GovernmentOrder} in G.O.Rt.No.65 is wholly unreasoned and^{fails to discloseany} application of mind. Though the^{order purports to have been passed} 'after careful examination', the^{mannerin which the departmenthas} considered the explanation offered by the^{appellant clearly} demonstrates complete non-application of^{mind andnon-} consideration of the record,^{inasmuch as the explanations submitted} by the appeltant were rejected^by. bald and repetitive^{observationsthat}

¶108

::10::

¶109

the same 'is not satisfactory'. The material portion of the G.o. so far

¶110

as is relevant are extracted hereunder:

¶111

In the reference 7th read aboue. shout cause Notice rssued to sri Mohd.. zaheeruddin, Addl- Kln-zi. eile Mohc. Nagar, Hgcerabad., ba.sed. on the aboue common Judgment of the Hon'ble High CourT d.ated. 3o-09-2024 in w.P.Nos.3B879 of 2o22 and 34194 of 2017, In the reference gth reac aboue, h" ho" "ub*itt"d hit .*plrnotion *hi.h i" ,ot ,rtirfo"tory. ,in"" the Addl. Khazi is resoonsibte -for the act d.one bu lis l,laibeen (Deputu Kha.zisl appointed bu him.

¶112

In the reference loth read. aboue, sri Mohd.. Zaheeruddin, Ad.ditional Klla-zi, Qila Mohammed Nagar, Hgderabad. was called. upon to shout cause uhg disciplinary action should not be initiated. against him for rssudng Diuorce certif,cate contrary to existing Law. In the reference l \th read aboue, h. hrt tub*itt.d Ht uplonotion, hi.hit not toti"fr"to.

¶113

In the reference ls read aboue, srnut cause l{otice lssued to sri Mohd.. T,aheeruddin, Additional Khazi, eile li,tohammed. Nagar, Hyd.ercbad.. In the reference l6tlt reo.d q.boue sri Moh.d.. zch.eeruddin, Ad.dl. K?nzi. eite Mohammed NagaL llgderabad has submitted. his explanation, stating that, he and his Nsib Kfuizis are performing the marraiges onlg in their eaz-ath zones which was fixed bg the then Nizam's Gouernment, uiiclt is not satis-factory.

¶114

(emplutsis supplied)

¶115

Such a mechanical approach without any analysis of the defence or consideration of the material placed on record, particularly rvhile rmposrng a major penalty of removal, renders the impugnecl or<ler arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

¶116

Conclusion

¶117

2o. For the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered view that the removal of the appellant is hcld to be vitiated by violation of the principles oi natural justice, absencc of a proper inquiry and reasonable opportunit5r. The impugned Government order is palpably arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in.dismissing the writ petition.

r' /

r'

:: l1::

2t. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed.^{The order dated} 25.L1.2O25 passed by the learned Single Judge^{in W.P.No.24449of} 2025 is set aside. Consequently, G.O.Rt.No.65^{dated O7.O8.2O25} issued by the State Government removing the^{appellantfrom the post} of Additional Qazi is quashed and set aside. It^{is made clear that this} judgment shall not preclude the State Government from initiating any fresh action against the appellant in^{accordancewith law, provided} such action is based on sp.ecific allegations^{and conductedin strict} compliance with the^principles of natural^{justice including a fair} inquiry and reasonable opportunity of defense.^{No order as to costs.}