P. Ramabrahmam Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

P. Ramabrahmam Vs State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: punishment of removal from service modified to compulsory retirement with effect from 24.07.2007; retirement/monetary benefits to be calculated and paid within three months of receipt of relevant papers; unpaid suspension-period salary addressed by payment of subsistence allowance as per entitlement; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings removing the petitioner from service dated 24.07.2007 and the memo rejecting his appeal dated 02.04.2015, both issued by respondent No.2, are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. +2 more

Court's answer

The amounts were deposited by the petitioner prior to the investigation, and the inquiry did not bring out that he utilised the funds for personal purposes.

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds the punishment of removal from service harsh and excessive, and holds that the respondents did not take into consideration the petitioner's past service.

Key takeaways

There were no charges of any misappropriation of any amounts against the petitioner.ratio¶62
The reasons given by the petitioner for the delay (delay in correction of CAN, software and connectivity problems, voluminous work-load) were not held to be non-existing or denied by the respondent authorities.ratio¶58
It is not denied that the petitioner had put in an unblemished service of twenty-seven years prior to the removal order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana (T. Madhavi Devi, J.) disposed of a writ petition by a Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board employee removed from service (proceedings dt. 24.07.2007) on a charge of delayed remittance (11 to 767 days) of collections made during a cash collection drive, treated as temporary misappropriation; appeal rejected on 02.04.2015. Although the Enquiry Officer had recommended that the lapse be condoned by collecting interest charges (computed at Rs.8,372.33), removal was imposed under Rule 9(ix) APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 read with G.O.Ms.No.25 dt. 03.02.2004. The Court held the punishment harsh and excessive: the amounts were deposited prior to investigation, no personal use of funds was established, the reasons for delay (CAN correction, software/connectivity problems, work-load) were not denied, and an unblemished service of twenty-seven years was ignored, with no charges of misappropriation of any amounts. Punishment was modified to compulsory retirement with effect from 24.07.2007; retirement benefits directed to be paid within three months of receipt of relevant papers, and unpaid suspension-period dues to be met as subsistence allowance per entitlement. Disposed of without costs. No precedents were cited.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Punishment order of removal from service dated 24.07.2007 issued by respondent No.2 (Proceedings No.2128/B3/12006 as per body text; OCR-garbled in prayer as 'Z1ZBtEglZ0O6'), and the rejection of the petitioner's appeal by Memo dated 02.04.2015 issued by respondent No.2.¶16
Respondent No.2 - Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board · 24.07.2007
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appointed in 1981 on temporary basis as Junior Assistant; services regularised after probation.¶34
Prior proceeding
Promoted to Senior Assistant and later placed under Special Grade post with higher pay scale.¶34
Prior proceeding
Placed under suspension (proceedings No.LC/E3/O6 dated 14.03.2006 per OCR) for delay in remitting revenue collected to the tune of Rs.g0,o4g/- during a cash collection drive, alleged as temporary misappropriation.¶35
Prior proceeding
On the same day, two other employees (P.Vidya Shankar and K.Nagender, Operation and Maintenance Division No.12) were also suspended regarding the same incident.¶35
Prior proceeding
Charge memo dated 24.04.2006 issued by respondent No.3 communicating the article of charge.¶35
Prior proceeding
Enquiry Officer appointed, conducted enquiry and submitted report.¶38
Prior proceeding
Enquiry Officer opined the lapse in depositing amounts immediately could be condoned by collecting interest charges on delayed remittances.¶38
Prior proceeding
Show cause notice dated 23.02.2007 issued proposing removal from service as punishment, ignoring the Enquiry Officer's recommendations.¶39
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted explanation dated 04.06.2007 to the show cause notice.¶39
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 passed punishment order of removal from service vide proceedings dated 24.07.2007.¶39
Prior proceeding
Petitioner appealed to the Board on 09.08.2008 pointing out that other employees facing similar inquiry were reinstated; no response from authorities.¶39
Prior proceeding
Second appeal dated 31.07.2014 rejected on 02.04.2015 observing there were no fresh grounds to consider the appeal.¶42
Prior proceeding
Prayer in the writ petition amended as per Court Order dt. 01.12.2021 in I.A. No.2/2019.¶17
Prior proceeding
Per counter affidavit of respondents 2 & 3: misconduct of delayed remittance established to an extent of Rs.g0,gg5/- with delay ranging from 11 days to 767 days.¶49
Prior proceeding
Per counter affidavit: charge held proved; removal from service imposed under Rule 9(ix) of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 03.02.2004.¶53
Prior proceeding
Per counter affidavit: Mr.P.Uday Shankar and Mr.K.Nagender had collected cash through manual receipts and handed it to the petitioner, who allegedly misappropriated it; their cases were dealt with separately.¶54