A.Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2026)

A.Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed; impugned G.O.Rt.No.81, MA & UD (Vig.II) Department, dated 18.02.2016 (Article of Charges) issued by respondent No.2 set aside; Contempt Case No.2047 of 2025 closed; miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (Principal Secretary, MA & UD) was competent, under Rules 2, 11 and 12 of the Telangana CCA Rules, 1991, to issue the Article of Charge (G.O.Rt.No.81, dated 18.02.2016) against the petitioner, an employee of the Forest Department, particularly after his repatriation from deputation with GHMC. +3 more

Court's answer

As the petitioner is an employee of the Forest Department, the powers vested under Rule 12 of the CCA Rules, 1991 are conferred on respondent No.1 (Principal Secretary of the concerned/parent department) only, and not on respondent No.2.

Ratio / Principle

Following B.L. Satganti, the contract of employment temporarily created during deputation ceases automatically once the employee is repatriated; therefore the issuance of the impugned charge memo by respondent No.2 after completion of the deputation period cannot be sustained.

Key takeaways

The impugned proceedings are hit by delay: the charge memo was issued in 2016 for a 2009 incident and remains unconcluded; the respondents cannot take the plea that the petitioner failed to submit a defence statement, since while communicating the Enquiry Report they never directed him to submit objections.ratio¶138
The allegation against the petitioner - signatures without date and failure to record dates of commencement/completion of works in the M.Book - can only be construed as a negligible error and does not constitute misconduct.ratio¶165
For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned charge memo is not sustainable under the law and, accordingly, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.81, MA & UD (Vig.II) Department, dated 18.02.2016, issued by respondent No.2, is set aside.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (Pulla Karthik, J.), common order dated 09.01.2026 in W.P.No.21556 of 2024 and Contempt Case No.2047 of 2025 - Service law - disciplinary proceedings - jurisdiction to issue charge memo - Telangana Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, Rules 2, 9, 11, 12 and 20. The petitioner, an Assistant Conservator of Forests (parent department: Forest Department), had worked on deputation as Forest Range Officer, Urban Forestry, GHMC (06.09.2008 to 03.12.2009) and stood repatriated. An Article of Charge (G.O.Rt.No.81, MA & UD (Vig.II) Dept., dt. 18.02.2016) was issued by respondent No.2, Principal Secretary, MA & UD, on an Alert Note dated 15.04.2014, alleging omission of dates under signatures in the Measurement Book during check measurement. Held: (i) under Rule 12, the Government's power to impose penalties vests in the Principal Secretary of the concerned (parent) department, i.e., respondent No.1, not respondent No.2; (ii) relying on B.L. Satganti v. State of M.P. (2015 (1) MP LJ 153), the borrowing department's Rule 20 power lapses on repatriation, so a charge memo issued after completion of deputation cannot be sustained; (iii) proceedings initiated seven years after the incident and still unconcluded are hit by delay (State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570), and respondents cannot blame the petitioner for not filing a defence statement they never called for; (iv) omission of dates in the M.Book is a negligible error and does not amount to 'misconduct' (Union of India v. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022; State of Punjab v. Ram Singh). G.O.Rt.No.81 dated 18.02.2016 set aside; Writ Petition allowed; Contempt Case closed (interim order dated 14.08.2024 not proceeded against as main matter disposed and IA for vacatur filed); no costs.

I3301 I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX :i

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PETITION NO:21556 OF 2024 D

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2047 OF 2025

w.P.NO 21 F 24

Between:

A.Venkateshwarlu, S/o. A.Sathaiah, Aged about 55 years, occ. Assistant Conservator of Forests/Deputy Director, FCRI, Mulugu, Siddipet

PETITIONER

AND

'1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal to Govemment, Envilgnment, Forests, Science and Technology Depa Secretariat, Hyderabad -500022.

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govemment, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500022.

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of the Forest Force, Telangana, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Head Office, Tankbund, Hyderabad Rep. by its Commissioner

The Director, Greater Hyderabad Municipal'Corporation (GHMC), Urban Forestry' lndira Park' Hyderabad

...RES'.NDENTS

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 a writ or direction more particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus declaring the aition of 2nd Respondent in issuing impugned Article of Charges in GO Rt.No.81, MA and UD (Vig.ll) Department, dated 18.02.2016 issued on the recommendation of the Alert Note No.118 (c) No.10874/ and E/NR.ll/11, dated 15.04.2014 given by the General Administration, V and E Department and the 2nd Respondent is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority as per Rule 2 and 9 of Telangana Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules,

1991 to issue disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, declare the same as arbitrary, illegal, without^{jurisdiction,} set aside the same.

lA NO: 1 OF 20L4

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 rbspondents; to consider and promote the petiti6ner to the post of Deputy Conservator of f:orest forthwith without reference to the Article of Charges issued by the second respondent in GO Rt.No.81, MA and UD (Vigil) Department, dated 18.02.2016 for tre incident pertaining to the year 2009 in view of the long delay caused, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

Between

'l . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal l\dministration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad -5OO022.

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of the Forest Force, Telangana Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004

...pETlTlONE

RESPONDENTS

AND

A.Venkates hwarlu, S/o. A.Sathaiah, Aged about 55 years, occ. Assistant^' Conservator of Forests/Deputy Director, FCRI, Mulugu, Siddipet

...RESPONOENTS/ PETITIONERS

2 The State of telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Environmerrt, Forests, Science and Technology Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 5OO 022.

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Head Office, Tankbund, l'lyderabad Rep. by its Commissioner

The Directo', Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Urban Forestry, lndira Park, Hyderabad

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed n support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim order dated. 14-08-2024 in W.P.No.21556 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition.

counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SURESH REDDY, sENloR coUNsEL FoR SRI GUNDRATI RAMAN GOUD Gounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR SERVICES-I counse! for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRt G.NARAYANA, sc FOR GHMC

C.C.NO: 2047 OF 2025

' Between:

A.Venkateshwqrlu, S/o. A.Sathaiah, Aged about 56 years, occ.Assistant Conservator of Forests/Deputy Director, FCRI ,^lVlulugu, Siddipet

... PETITIONER/PETITIONE R

AND

1- Sri Ahmed Nadeem, l.A.s.,Principal secretary, State of rerangana, Environment,^{Forests,scienceand rechnolojy Department,S-6cretariat,} Hyderabad - 500 022.

Dr.C.Suvama Chandrappagari lFS, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of th_e_F_orest Force, Telangana, Aranya Bhavan, saifabad, Hyderabad - 500 004

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 3

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1g7t to punish the respondents herein for willfully violating the Hon'ble Court order in dated 14.08.2024 passed in WP.No.21556 of 2024.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUNDRATT RAMAN GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I

-The^Courtmade the following: COMMON ORDER

a

IN THE II.IGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK

WRIT PETITION No.2 1556 0F 20.24

and

CONTEMPT CASE No.2O47 OF 2O2S

Dated 9tt Januliv . 2O26

Between:

A.Venkateshvrarlu

Petitioner

A}ID

The State of Telangana,

Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government, Environment, Forests, Science & Technologr Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & (4) others

Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

Since the grievance of the petitioner in both these matters is inter se connected with each other, they are taken up together and being disposect of by this common order.

Heard Sri P.suresh Reddy, learned senior counsel, representing sri G.Raman Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for services-l appearing for respondents -, to 3, and Sri G.Narayana, learned Standing Counsel, appeering for respondents 4 and 5.

2

PK, J w_2r556_2024 and cc_2047_2025

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that an Article of charge vide G.o.Rt.No.g1, MA & uD (vig.Il) Department, dated 18.02-2016, was issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner alleging that while the petitioner was working on deputation as Forest Range officer in the office of respondent No.4 during the period from 06.09.2008 to og.l2.2oog he has not put the date under his initial recorded in the Measurement Book at a few places during check measurement of four works out of many works, without jurisdiction and after a lapse of g years, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying ,_1. charge. However, without considering the said explanation, an enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry in violation of Rule 20 of relangana civil services (ccA) Rule, lggl (in short 'ccA Rules, lggl) and submitted the Enquiry Report dated 05.03.2023 holding that the charge against the petitioner is proved. But, so far, no fina1 orders are passed, pursuant to the Enquiry Report. Learned senior counsel has contended that though the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, the respondents are not considering his case for promotion on the ground that departmental enquiry is still

a

/
/

PK, J wp_2t556-2024 and cc_2047_2025

J

pending. Le'arned senior counsel has further contended that the very initiatio::r of departmental proceedings against the petitioner is violative of Flule 2 of CCA Rules, 1991, inasmuch as Respondent No.2 is neither the Appointing Authority nor Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has also contended that in case of the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 3 are the appointing authorities. Therefore, the impugned G.o.Rt.No.g1 dated L8.02.2023 lacks jurisdiction and therefore liable to be set aside. Reliance has oeen placed on:

a) Union o"'f India u. J.Ahmedt; b) Inspecttr Prem Chqnd. a. Gottt. of NCT of Delhiz; c) order dated 17.o4.2o2s passed by this court 1n W.P.No.29O66 of 2024; and d) J.Ro,m,o,chondro;io,h u. Gouerttment of Andhrq. prad.eshs.

Per contra, the learned Government pleader has submitted that based orL the Alert Note No.118 (c.No.l0g7lv&E/NR.2/ttl, dated 15.04.2014, respondent No.2 has issued an Article of charge to the petitioner vide G.o.Rt.No.81, Municipal Administration and urban Develolrment, (vig.ll) Department, dated lg.o2.2ot6, in

r AIR 1979 SC 1022

2 (2OO7l4 SCC 566

3 (2OL2 SCC Online l,p 730

PK, J wP_21556_2O24 and cc_2047_2025

4

respect of the error caused by the petitioner in not putting the date under the initial recorded in the measurement book duiring check measurement while working as Forest Range Officer, Director Urban Forestry, GHMC, Hyderabad, on deputation basis. Further, the petitioner himself has agreed that he has made negligible error in his affidavit. As such, the Article of Charge has been issued by the Government in tune with the Rules and Regulations. It is further submitted that the Enquiry officer has conducted enquiry, the Inquiry Report was sent by respondent No.4 vide endorsement dated 19.0 1.2024 to the PCCF (HoFF), Hyderabad, dated 13.03.2024, and the same was acknowledged by the petitioner on 1O.O4.2O24. However, the petitioner has not submitted his written representation/further defence statement to the findings in the Inquiry Report. Therefore, the petitioner himself delayed finalization of^'the case. However, on the other hand hq is claiming for promotion without reference to charge memo as well as challenging the charge memo on the ground of delay.' Therefore, owing to delay in conclusion of charges, the charges cannot be set aside and the charges have to be concluded on their own merit.

a'
/
:

5

PK, J w21556-2024 and cc-2047-2025

5)ItisfurtlrercontendedthataSperRule12ofCCARules, 1991,theGov€:rnmentinMA&UDisempoweredtoissueArticleof charge^{to the 'cetitioner.Hence, the issuance of Article of charge} tothepetition.erisvalidandisinconformitytotheCCARules, lggl.Therelbre,itisvehementlycontend'edbythelearned Government^{Pleader that there is no violation of Rules in issuance} of Article^{of chargeto the petitionerand the writ petition is liable} to be dismisserl^{as devoid of merits and thus prayed to dismissthe} writ petition.^{Ileliance has been placed on:}

a) orderdated04.06.2010passedinW.P.No.227:I4of2009&batch; b) Order^{dated16.06'2025 in W'P'No'12329 of 2023; arrd} 6) On 14.Ct8.2O24,^{thisCourt while issuingnotice before} admission^{to 1.he respondents has passed interimorders directing} the respondents^{to considerthe case of the petitionerfor promotion} to the^{post of Deputy conservator of Forests,without reference to} pend.encyofc.hargememodated|3.02.2016issuedbyrespondent No.2.

7l Alleging^{non-complianceand willful disobedienceof the said} interim^{order dated 14.08.2024,tt,le petitioner has filed Contempt} Case No.2O47^{of 2025'}

PK, J w_21556_2O24 and cc_2047_2025

6

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

A perusal of the record reveals that admittedly the petitioner is an employee of Forest Department having appginted by respondent Nos.1 and 3. While so, he worked on deputation basis as Forest Range Officer in the office of respondent No.4 from 06.09.2008 to O3.l2.2OOg. Thereafter, he was repatriated to his parent d.epartment i.e. Forest Department. Further, an Article of Charge vide G.O.Rt.No.81, dated 18.02.2016, was lssued by respond.ent No.2 after a lapse of 8 years alleging that he exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to drty, to which, the peti{ioner has submitted his reply denying the charge. However, an Erlquiry was cond.ucted and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his rQport, but, so far, no final orders are passed.

1O) Learned senior counsel has attacked the impugned proceedings mainly on two grounds uiz., (1) competency of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned G.O.Rt.No.8 1, dated 18.02.2016; and (2) delay in conclusion of proceedings

/ r'

itl

7

For adjudicating the first ground, it is necessary to refer

Rule 2 (al of CCA Rules, 1991, which reads as under:

" 'appointing authoritg in relation to a Gouernment Seruant, means

(i) the authority which actually made the temporary or officiating ,)r substantive appointment, as the case may be, of the Government Servant, to the post held by him at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings; or

(iil the authority which is, under the rules regulating the recruitmenl: to the post. which the Government servant for the time being holds, competent to make an appointment.

whichever e.uthority is higher;"

l2l Further, Rule 1 I of ccA Rules, 1991, stipulates the Disciplinary r\uthorities in respect of state services. As per subclause (26) (e) thereof, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests i.e. respondent No.3 herein may impose on Assistant conservator of Forest any of the penalties specified in clause (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 9.

The specific assertion of the learned Government Pleader is that as per Flule t2 of the ccA Rules, 1991, respondent No.2 is empowered to issue the charge memo. To adjudicate upon this contention, th:e said provision of 1aw is extracted. hereunder:

8

PK,J wp_2L556_2024 ""^{rffil zo*}

t

"Rule 12. Government's power to impose penalties on members of state senrices:- Notwithstanding anything in Rule 11, the Government may impose any of the penalties specilied in Rut. g o., members of the State Services."

r4l on perusal of the above provisions of law, this court is of the view that as the petitioner being the employee of Forest Department, the powers vested under Rule 12 of ccA Rrrles, lggl, are conferred on respondent No.1 only but not on respondent No.2, as contended by the respondents for the reason that the Government means the principar secretar5i of the concerned department i.e. respondent No.l in case of the petitioner, as admittedly his parent department is Forest Department.

tn the case on hand, admittedly, the charge memo has been issued by respondent No.2 in respect of the incident pertaining to the perio d 2oog while the petitioner was working on deputation basis in the office of respondent No.4. Admittedly, on the date of issuance of the impugned Charge Memo, the petitioner is working under the centrol of respondent Nos.1 and 3 only.

It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court in B.L. satgantht u. state of

ii'--:l--r^+--

rl i

9

PK, J w_21556_2024 and cc_2047_2025

Madhga Pro,desh and anothefi wherein the Division. Bench has elaborately interpreted Rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CClr) Rules, 1966, which is per se analogous to the Rule 20 of the C(lS (CCA) Rules. The relevant portion of the said

decision is extracted hereunder:

"12. Ruk: 20 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 as applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh and reproduced hereinab,rve gives power to the borrowing department to take disciplinrtry action against a Government servant who is on deputaticrn and the powers to the appointing authority and the disciplinztry authority are conferred on the borrowing department. The Rule contemplates that the borrowing department shall have the powers of the Appointrng Authority for the purpose of placing the governm€:nt servant under suspension and for taking disciplinary action against him but the proviso contemplates that the action taken has to br: forthwith communicated to the parent Department. When power is given to any authority to suspend a Government servant or initiate disciplinary action against him an assumption has to be drawn that the power can be exercised so long as the relationship of master arrd servant, employer and employee subsists or the contract of emplo5,ment is in existence. Once the relationship of master and servant c,r employer and employee or the contract of service itself comes to an end, the question would be as to how disciplinary action or power to suspend can be exercised by an authority with whom the contract of employment of the employee concerned is no more in existence, Rule 20 therefore, has to be interpreted by holding that the power conferred under Rule 2O to the borrowing department or authority to suspend a Government servant or to take a disciplinary action against him can be exercised only if the relationship of master and servzmt or the contract of employment between the borrowing departmeet and the deputationist employee subsists. When an employee who is a government servant and holds a lien in a Governmr'nt departmenl. is sent on deputation to Foreign Department or a Corporation, then during the period of deputation a temporary contract of service is brought into force between the borrowing departmerrt and the employee concerned and so long as its contract of employment subsists the borrowing department can invoke the provision of Rule 20 but. once the emplogee ls repatrlated. back to the forelgn deparament then the contract of emplogment temporanllg created. durlng the perlod of d,eputatlon ceases o;id lf that bct the posltlon, then the borroutlng depantment does not hqae ang authot'ltg to take actlon agalnst the emplogee

4 2Ot5 (1) MP LJ 153

l0

PK, J w_2I556_2O24 and cc_2047_2025

f

concerned. Apart from the above a perusal of Rule 20(2) and the proviso to Rule 20{2l.(1) and (iii) also clarifies the position. After the departmental proceeding initiated by the Borrowing Department is completed and the finding of enquiry is recorded, in the light of the finding if the Borrowing Department wants to impose any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of Rule 10, then after consultation with the lending department the punishment can be imposed. However, the proviso to Rule 2o(21(il indicates that if there is any difference of opinion between the Borrowing Department and lending department that the service of the employee has to be replaced at the disposal of the lending department. This clearly shows that action under these Rules can be taken only when the employee is on deputation not otherwise as the stipulation in proviso to Rule 2o(2l,(il speaks about replacement of the employee to the lending department. Similarly in Rule 2o(21(il and proviso thereto also it is clearly provided that if the punishment to be imposed is a major punishment as provided in Rule 10(v) to (ix), then the employee has to be replaced to the lending depar'tment and it is only the lending department which can take action. The stipulation in this part of the rule for replacement of the employee to the parent department clearly indicates the intention of the rule maker. In case Rule 20 was applicable to a employee who is already repatriated to the parent (lending) department then the provision for replacement of the employee to the lending department as contained in both the provisos to Rule 20(2[0(iii) would not provide for replace the service of the government employee to the lending department. This in I our considered view would be the interpretation which can be given to the powers that may be exercised by the borrowing department under Rule 20."

(Emphasis supplied)

l7l From the above it is clear that the contract of employment, which was temporarily created during the period of deputation, ceases automatically once the employee is repatriated back to his foreign department. In view of the sarne, the issuance of impugned charge memo by respondent No.2 to the petitioner after completion of deputation period, cannot be sustained.

,-€ {'

PK, J wp-2L556_2O24 and cc_2047_2025

As regrards the ground of delay, it is gathered from the record that admitterdly, the charge memo was issued in the year 2oL6 in respect of th.e incident pertaining to the year 2oog i.e. after a lapse of 7 years end till date the proceedings are not concluded. The Government, from time to time, has issued Government orders directing the early conclusion of disciplinary cases and to adhere to the time sctredule. Vide G.o.Ms.No.6T9, General Administration (Services-c) Department, dated 01.11.200g, the Government has stipulated as under:

" on allegations made against the Government employees disciplinarl/ cases are initiated in accordance with the rules in force, and where'/er necessa-ry inquiring auttrorities are appointed to inquire into articlel; of charge against such employees. Instructions were issued for expeditious completion of the inquiries and normar time of 3 months and 6 months is allowed in simple and complicated cases, respectively. Government of the administrative Department concerned. at Government level shall review all the disciplinary cases against employees in rbspect of Head of the Departments under his control and also at the field level and shall submit a note to the chief secretarJr to Government duly recording the reasons for non-completion of the enquires arrd to circulate the same to the Hon,ble chief Minister. It is also the responsibility of the inquiring authority to complete the inquiry within the allowed time, otherwise, such inquiring authority shall be held responsible for the delay, which d.eserves penar action. 2.....

PK, J w_21556_2024 and cc_2047_2025

t2

{',

Government direct that the disciplinary cases initiated agfiinst the Government employees shall be completed as expeditiously as'possible and the existing instructions read above shall be adhered to. The Departments of secretariat shall review the status position of the pending disciplinary cases against all the employees with which they are concerned and submit a note to the Chief SecretarSr to Government as per the instructions in force. It is also the responsibility of the inquiring authorities to complete the inqurry as per the allowed tinae. The Competent Authority, after receipt of the inquiry report shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 6 months of its initiation an$ in case of abnormal delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedingB; action shall be initiated against concerned inquiring authority.

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sto:te of htnjab a. Cho;mo;n La.l Goycrls has held that the disciplinary proceedings must be conducted soon after the alleged irregUlarities are committed and if the delay is too long, the charges are liable to be quashed.

2Ol In the instant case, admittedly, the charge memo was issued in the year 2016 for the incident pertaining to the year 2OO9. The only ground urged by the respondents for the delay is that though the Enquiry Report was furnished to the petitioner on 10.04.2024, the petitioner himself has failed to submit his defence statement. But, the said ground cannot be countenanced for the reason that

s (199s) 2 SCC 570

/

l3 PK, J w_21556_2O24 and cc_2047_2025

while comrnunicating the Enquiry Report, admittedly, the respondents have not directed the petitioner to submit his objections, if any. Therefore, the respondents are restrained from taking the said plea for the delay caused as the respondents are admittedly empowered to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law even in the absence of any such defense statement from the delinquent employee. Hence, the impugned proceedings are hit by delay.

2l) Further, the learned Government Pleader has urged that the petitioner himself has admitted in his affidavit that he committed negligible er:ror and therefore the disciplinary proceedings are sustainable under the law. Here, it is relevant to state that the Hon'ble Supreme court in state of htnjab a. Rann singh, ExConstqble6.:ras observed as under:

"5- Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6tr, Edn. At p.999, thus:

'1. transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior; its s5mon)rms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, bu t not negligence or carelessness,.

u gsez14 scc s4

t4

PK, J w_21556_2O24 and cc_2047_2025

{

Misconduct in oflice has been delined as:

'Any unlawful behavior by a public oflicer in relatibn to the duties of his office, willful in character. Term embraces acts which the office-holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act."

Further, in P.Ramanathq. Aigar's Law Lexicon, 3d Edn., at p.3o27, the term "misconduct" has been defined as und.er:

"The term 'miscond.uct'implies a wrongfur intention, and. not a mere error ofjudgment.

Misconduct is not necessarily the sarne thing as conduct involving moral turpitude.

The word 'misconduct' is a relative term, and has to be construed with reference to the subject-matter and the context wherein the term occurs, having regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is being construed. 'Misconduct' literafly means wrong conduct or improper conduct."

Relying on the above definitions, the Hon,ble supreme court

in J.Ahemd.'s cq,se (refe*ed. s-.tpra), has held as under:

"11. code of conduct as set out in the conduct Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the government servant in the context of conduct Rures would be misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is misconduct. A disregard of an essential condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct. This view was adopted in slnrd.aprasad onkarprasad rhtari u. Diui,sional supdt. central Rlg., Nagpur Dui.sion, Nagpur [(19s9) 61 Bom LR 19s6]

-,

C,

15

) \

PK, J wp_2L556_2024 cc_2O47_2025

and satubha K.vaghela u. Moosa Roza [10 Guj LR 231. The High court has noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary which runs as under:

"lvlisconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of neglillence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitut-e such misconduct."

24j' comin6J to the case on hand, the fotlowing charge has been framed against the petitioner:

"That sri A. Venkateswarlu the then Forest Range officer, Urban Forestry,^()ircle-10, GHMC as a recording officer for the works pertaining rrt circle No-lo has made signatures without date. He failed to record the date of commencement of work and date of completion of work in thr: M. Book, and thus he violated the procedure as per Ap Public worl<s Accounts code and by this above act he has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty conduct unbecoming of Government servant anc thereby contravened Rule 3 91) and (2) of A.p. civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964-"

25l. rhus, the allegation against the petitioner is that he made signatures without mentioning the date arid tailed to record date of commencement of work and date of completion of work in the M.Book, which can be construed as negligible error on the part of the petitioner ilnd same d.o not constitute any misconduct.

I /

r6

,r

PK, J vtP_21556_2024 and cc_2047_2025

For the afore-mentioned reasons, the impugned charge memo dated 18.02.2016 is not sustainable under the law and therefore liable to be set aside.

27ll Accordingly, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.S1, MA & UD (Vig.II) Department, dated 18.02.2016, issued by respondent No.2 is set aside.

Insofar as the Contempt. Case is concerned, as the respondents have filed Interlocutory Application seeking to vacate the interim order dated L4.08.2024 and the main writ petition itself is disposed, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Contempt Case

29lr In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Contempt Case is closed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

No costs.

//TRUE^COPY/

SD'.4.^V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

SECTION^OFFICER

f

To 1

4

a

<br>

The Dinrctor, Greatgr.l-.lv{era.bad Municipal corporation (GHMC), Urban Forestry, lndira^park, Hyderabad

ONC CC tO SRI GUNDHATI BAIY4ry GOUD, AdVOCAIC TOPUC] T - Two ccs to Gp FoR SERVTCES-I, Hish^-c;;ril;; iildt"ie-Jteungana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI

B. ONC CC tO SRI G.NARAYANA, SC FOR GHMC TOPUC] 9. Two CD Copies

PSK. BS

1r4

Il

HIGH COI'RT

DATED:09/01 12026

COMMON ORDER

WP.No.21$56 of 2024 AND

I
{t tE SII (
C)t 2 4 JAil 2026
* *

CC.No.2047 of 2025

L].OWI N Gi TH E_WRIT_P+T{T{ O N AN D CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS

a

@t
e4 r\M

Issues for consideration

4 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether respondent No.2 (Principal Secretary, MA & UD) was competent, under Rules 2, 11 and 12 of the Telangana CCA Rules, 1991, to issue the Article of Charge (G.O.Rt.No.81, dated 18.02.2016) against the petitioner, an employee of the Forest Department, particularly after his repatriation from deputation with GHMC.¶92
The court held
As the petitioner is an employee of the Forest Department, the powers vested under Rule 12 of the CCA Rules, 1991 are conferred on respondent No.1 (Principal Secretary of the concerned/parent department) only, and not on respondent No.2.ratio¶108
2.
Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2016 for a 2009 incident and still unconcluded are vitiated by delay and liable to be set aside.¶92
The court held
The impugned proceedings are hit by delay: the charge memo was issued in 2016 for a 2009 incident and remains unconcluded; the respondents cannot take the plea that the petitioner failed to submit a defence statement, since while communicating the Enquiry Report they never directed him to submit objections.ratio¶138
3.
Whether the petitioner's alleged lapse - making signatures without dates and failing to record dates of commencement and completion of works in the Measurement Book - constitutes 'misconduct'.¶165
The court held
The allegation against the petitioner - signatures without date and failure to record dates of commencement/completion of works in the M.Book - can only be construed as a negligible error and does not constitute misconduct.ratio¶165
4.
Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the interim order dated 14.08.2024 (directing consideration of the petitioner's promotion without reference to the pending charge memo), punishable as contempt under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.¶46
The court held
The Contempt Case is not entertained: the respondents have filed an Interlocutory Application seeking to vacate the interim order dated 14.08.2024 and the main writ petition itself stands disposed; the Contempt Case is closed.ratio¶171

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Article of Charges issued in G.O.Rt.No.81, MA & UD (Vig.II) Department, dated 18.02.2016 by respondent No.2, on the recommendation of Alert Note No.118 (C.No.10874/V&E/NR.2/11, dated 15.04.2014) of the General Administration (V&E) Department; challenged as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.¶20
Respondent No.2 - Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Telangana · 18.02.2016
Prior proceeding
Petitioner, a Forest Department employee, worked on deputation as Forest Range Officer in the office of respondent No.4 (GHMC) from 06.09.2008 to 03.12.2009 and was thereafter repatriated to his parent department.¶91
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charge; without considering it, an enquiry was ordered.¶68
Prior proceeding
Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry (allegedly in violation of Rule 20 CCA Rules) and submitted the Enquiry Report dated 05.03.2023 holding the charge proved; no final orders passed pursuant thereto.¶68
Prior proceeding
Enquiry findings communicated: respondent No.4 sent the Inquiry Report vide endorsement dated 19.01.2024 to the PCCF (HoFF) dated 13.03.2024; acknowledged by petitioner on 10.04.2024; petitioner did not submit a written representation/further defence statement.¶81
Prior proceeding
By interim order dated 14.08.2024 in W.P.No.21556 of 2024, this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to Deputy Conservator of Forests without reference to the pending charge memo dated 18.02.2016; the petitioner thereafter filed Contempt Case No.2047 of 2025 alleging willful disobedience.¶46
Prior proceeding
Respondents filed an Interlocutory Application seeking to vacate the interim order dated 14.08.2024 and to dismiss the Writ Petition.¶171
Prior proceeding
Government (G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2009) directed expeditious conclusion of disciplinary cases - normal time of 3/6 months in simple/complicated cases - and required the competent authority to conclude disciplinary proceedings within 6 months of receipt of the inquiry report.¶132