IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

WRIT PETITION NO: 35400 OF 2021

132521

...RESPONDENTS

Betvveen:

AND

Sri K.Sudharshan, S/o. Krlshnama Chary, aged about 51 years, Senior

Assistant, O/o. District Transport Office, Bhoongir, yadadri

Bohoongir District.

...PETITIONER

1. The State of Telangana, Rep., by its principal

Secretary, Transport, Roads

and Building Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Transport, Telangana State, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the

circumstances

stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased

to issue a Writ more in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or

direction, declare the ir

R No 27 2sN 3t2oo4, .*I'TlJffi

,,::: .:.f",i:

:','::ll.T T:::No'11736A/ig

"2/2010-3,

Transport, R and B Dept., dated 01to4r2o110f

the 1stRespondent

and consequential

order R.No.2725Al3fu

set aside the same oy oectaring it is iregar,

"rorrrl,,rooo,dated

1010212021

and

without any power

and ir,ri"ai..-*,^^ ^^ .:'

dlDtrtary,

unconstitutional

and void

Rc.No.272SAl3

/2004, datet

sdiction as the original punishment

order

bearing

R. No.272sAl3 N2t2oo4,:

17/06/2010

is alreadv

set

to grant

a lr notionar o"nur,,. lio'u'

07 I 20 1 7"'; ;;;::1; :il::;:iHffi:;I

Iike promotion,

increments,

seniority

and etc

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the

affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to

suspend the operation of the impugned order bearing impugned proceedings of the

2nd Respondent bearing R No.2725A13/2004, dated 1710612010 and orders in

appeal in MemoNo.1 1 736iVig .llll2t2o1o-3, Transport, R and B Dept , dated

01lo4l2o11 of the

'1st

Respondent and consequential order R.No.2725lV3/V212004,

daled 1OlO2t2O21 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

Between:

'l . The State of Telangana, Rep , by its Secretary' Transport' Roads and

Building Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad'

2. The Commissioner of Transport, Telangana State' Khairatabad' Hyderabad'

...PETITIONER /RESPONDENTS

AND

SriK.Sudharshan,S/o.KrishnamaChary'agedabout5lyears'SeniorAssistant'

5f

"'oittii.i

iransport Office, Bhoongir' Yadad n Bohoongir District'

..'RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances

stated in the

affidavit filed in supporl of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the

interim orders daled 23t12t2[21

passed in lA No l of 2021 in W P No 35400 of

2021

Counsel

for the Petitioner:

SRI' RANGARAJULA

RAJASEKHARA

RAO

Counsel for the Respondents:

AGP FOR SERVICES'

ltl

The Court made the following:

ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI

NANDA

RTII o3 ot22

DATE: O4'12.2O25

BETWEEN:

K. Sudharshan

Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana'

rep., bY its Principal SecretarY'

Transport, Roads & Building Department'

Secretariat,

Hyderabad and another'

Respondents

ORDER

Heard Sri Rangarajula Rajasekhar Rao' learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services -

III appearing on behalf of the respondents'

2

SN. .I

W.P.No.J5400

of 2021

2. TheDEtitronrADDroachedtheourtskinq

DTaversundr:

,'......to

issue a Writ more in the nature of Writ of

Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, declare

the impugned proceedings of the 2nd Respondent

bearing R.No.2125/V3/2004,

dated 77/06/2OtO

and

orders in appeat in Memo No.117 36/Vig.III/2/2O1O

3,

Transport, R&B Dept., dated Ot/O4/2011 of the 1,r

Respondent and consequential

order

R.No.2725/V3/V2/2004,

dated IO/02/2021 and set

aside the same by declaring it is illegal, arbitrary,

unconstitutional and void without any power and

jurisdiction

as the original punishment order bearing

Rc. No,2725lV3 /2004, dated 17/06/2010 is atready set

aside by the 2"d Respondent R.No.2725/V3/V2/2O04,

dated 26/07/2017 and consequently direct the

Respondents to grant all notional benefits tike

promotion, inc:g6n6n15, seniority and etc and to pass

such other order or orders as this Hon,ble Court may

deems fit just and proper in the cjrcumstances of the

case. "

hcaof thetio briaeri

3

te

renmdeithaffiavlfiie iti

IN SUDDort ofhenresent wrtnetitnsasunt der

J

SN, J

y.P.No.35400 of 2021

i) The petitioner was appointed as a Typist in 1999 and

promoted as Senior Assistant in 1998. While the petitioner

was working in the office of the loint Commissioner of

Transport, Khairatabad, a surprise check was conducted by

ACB on 05.03.2004. Subsequently, a common departmental

enquiry was ordered and charge memo dated 02.03.2005

was issued against the petitioner alleging (i) collection of

illegal mamools through a private person, and (ii) allowing a

private person to do official work.

ii) The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the

charges. After enquiry, the Inquiry Officer held Charge No.1

as not proved and Charge No.2 as proved. The 2,d

respondent disagreed with the findings and imposed

punishment vide proceedings No.2725/V3/2004,

dated

17 .06.2OtO. The petitioner,s appeal was rejected on

01.04.2011 without proper consideration, compelling the

petitioner

to approach the A.p. Administrative Tribunar, by

filing O.A. No.BS92l2010

and the Tribunal, vide order dated

11.11.2013, set aside the orders dated 17.06.2010

and

1

SN. J

W.P.No.35400 of 2021

01.04.2011 and remanded the matter to the respondents

therein for fresh consideration

iii) Pu rsua nt to

respondent issued

dated 26.07.2071

P s

the Tribunal's directions, the Lnd

proceedings vide R. No. 2725 lV3 lv2l 2004

setting aside the earlier punishment

imposed against the petitioner' However' contrary to their

own order and without any power of review under the Rules'

the 2nd resPondent again issuedanimpugned order vide

R.No.2725lV3 lvZl2004

datedtO.O2.2O2L lmPosing the

punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments

with cumulative effect Aggrieved by the same' the

petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ

petition.

cD

antortionofthe

uqed

relev o

A)Th

v

d

v

t

Ro7

Trno

24

rce of

mrs e

tere

H r

201o uedohetionerhereinls

issttt

datedt7.o

r

hre r

5

SN, J

w.P.No.35400

ot 2021

" order:

A surprise check was conducted by the ACB

officials over the office of the loint Transport

Commissioner & Secretary Regional

Transport

Authority, Central Zone' Khairthabad'

Hyderabad

on

05-03-2004.

The Surprise check proceedings revealed that

Sri. K. Sudershan, Senior Assistant has committed

Charge 1:

He was indulging in practice of collecting

illegal

amount or mamools from the owners of the vehicles

through a private person namely Sri M Gopala Krishna

engaged by him and collected bribe amount of Rs'

PAS,O/'for him and other officials' was found and

seized by the ACB officials from the possession of Sri

M. Gopala Krishna at the time of surprise check on 05-

03-2004.

certain irregu la rities '

The following charges were framed against Sri'

K. Sudershan, Sr' Asst" in the reference

2nd cited'

Charge 2:

He allowed Sri M. Gopala Krishna on 05-03-2004 to do

official work on behalf of him and failed to maintain

absolute integrity in violation of the Andhra Pradesh

Civil Servlces (Conduct) Rules' 1964-

6

SN. .I

W.P.No.35400

of202t

Thus Sri K.Sudarshan by his above mentioned

acts

exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and

conduct unbecoming of a Government

Servant and

thereby contravened

Rul

pradesh

Cjvir service

r.""o"r.l,l :'l,J ,?. "

Andhra

In response to I

Sudershan, senior Assr., nr:H". ::T:J:" :

the reference 3d cited. As the explanation was not

satisfactory Sri. pl.5l.;

14

rransport

Commissioner Jill"J:'I:"::#,_]"I

Enquiry Officer in the reference

4rh cited.

After competition of the on^,,;-., .r.-_ _

orricer submittua r,i, ."pollff ffill:,H.tffi:]

No. 1 framed against Sri. K.Sudershan,

Senior Asst.,

is not proved and charge No, 2 is held proved.

After careful examjnation of Enquiry Report the

findJngs of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge

No.1 was not accepted for the following reasons.

As per the surprise check proceedings,

during

the surprise check conducted by ACB, unaccounted

money of Rs.2000/- was found with a private person

by name Sri. M. Gopala Krishna who was operating as

an Agent, He was also found with another Rs.10,850/-

Stated to be collected from parties on behalf of sri' K'

SUdershan

and bY Smt Arundhati' sr' Assistants

;;;;t

at counter

No' 22 & 23 respective\Y

rhe said

l

SN, J

W.P.N0.35400 of 202 I

amount was to be distributed among the Staff

members Viz. Sri. K. Sudhersha and Smt. Arundhati,

Senior Assistants Sri. Tejban, Supdt., and Smt. Vijaya

laxmi, RTO, for which slips were prepared duly

mentioning the amounts received, to be distributed to

the above staff and kept them separately. When Sri.

Gopala Krishna, was asked about the letter noted on a

chit wrapped to one of the wads of currency notes, he

stated that (R) denotes R.T.O. He also gave other

details.

The grounds for disagreement with the Findings

of Inquiring Authority are:-

1. That unaccounted cash to an extent of more than

Rs.12,000/- was found with an unauthorrzed person.

It is clear that this was collection of bribe and each

employee has a share i.e. The RTO., Supdt., and two

Senior Assistants.

2. The unauthorlzed person at the time of recording

statement clearly stated that each one has a share

and the names were marked on the bundles.

3. Unless the RTO, gives consent, these things cannot

happen in the office.

Therefore the findings of the inqulry Officer in

respect of Sri. K. Sudhershan, Senior Assistant are not

accepted and the charge No.1 against him is also held

proved.

8

SN. J

W.P.No.35400 of 2021

In the reference 6th cited, the charged officer

has been issued memo duly communicating a copy of

the Enqulry report along with the dlsagreement note

as per Sub Rule (2) of Rule 21 of APCS (CC&A) Rules

1991 for submitting the representation, if any'

With reference to the said

Sudhershan, Senlor Assistant has

explanatlon in the reference 7Lh cited.

memo Sri. K.

submitted his

Sri. K, Sudershan, Senior Assistant, in his

explanation, has stated that he is not related to the

surprise check proceedings as he was not at all

involved in the case and that he was already shifted

from new reglstration of transport vehicle seat from

which the said prlvate person Sri Gopala Krishna was

found to have been operatlng as agent; that the

allegation that he engaged a private person by name

Gopala Krishana was not supported by any evidence;

that the private person during the enquiry has stated

that out of Rs. 12,850/- found with him, an amount of

Rs. 10,850/- was collected from various parties, that

the ACB officials obtained statement of Sri' M Gopala

Krishna, private person and the symbols mentionlng

(R) (C) (S) (A) does not show that the amount were

meant for sharing among the staff and that there is no

failure on his part and requested to drop further

a ction .

9

SN' J

W.P.No.l5400 of 2021

After careful examination of the Representation

submitted by the accused officer in the reference 7th

cited, with reference to inquiry report and material

available on the record, it is found that the

Representation of the accused officer has no merits

and it is observed that the evidence collected and

produced by the ACB clearly shows that unauthorized

person with unauthorized cash was found with slips

attached to the bundles of cash have shown the

names including that of Sri. K. Sudhershan. It is also

found that he allowed the said private person to do

the offlcial work on his behalf. Considering these

aspects it is decided to impose the punishment of

withholding of four annual grade increment with

cumulative effect.

Accordingly Sri. K. Sudhershan, Senior

Assistant is hereby inflicted with the punishment of

withholding of Four increments with cumulative

effect.

Sri. K. Sudhershan, Senior Assistant, office of

the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Nizamabad is

informed that there is a provision under Rule 33 of

APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 for preferring an appeal to

the Government against these orders and he may

prefer an appeal within a period of 3 months from the

date on which a copy of this order is received by him."

10

SN. J

W.P.No.35400 of 2021

B)The re!evant Dortion ofthe imDuqne Memo

No.11736lYio.Illl22O1O-3 dated o1.o4.2011issu ed

bv theResoondentNo.l-the Princioal Secretarv to

Government, Transoort, Roads and Buildinos

DeDartment to theoetitione rherein, is extracted

h e reu nde r:

"In lhe reference 1't cited the Transport

Commissioner, A.P., Hyderabad, has Imposed a

punishment of "withholdlng of four annual grade

increments with cumulative effect" against Sri

K.Sudharshan, Senior Assistant for his acts in violation

of Rule 3 of A.P.C.S (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

2. In the reference 2"d cited, Sri K.Sudharshan,

Sr. Asst has filed an appeal petition before the

Government with a request to quash the proceedings of

the Tra nsport Commissioner.

3. While the appeal petltion was K Sudharshan,

Sr.Asst, has also filed O.A. No.8 592/2010 also before

the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad

and the Hon'ble under conslderation, Sri Tribunal in its

lnterim orders 4th cited has directed the 2nd respondent

(Government) to pass appropriate orders on the appeal

filed by the applicant 2"' cited within a period of six

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order'

lt

SN, J

W.P.N0.35400 of202l

4. Government after careful examination of the

appeal with reference to the material available on

records and observed that appeal does not merit for

any consideration as no new grounds were put forth by

the appellant warranting for any interference in the

matter and therefore decided to reject the appeal.

5. Accordingly Government hereby reject the

appeal filed by Sri K.Sudharshan, Sr.Asst, against the

proceedings referred in the reference cited.

6. The record in original File No 2725lV3/20O4

in two volumes containing 1-559 pages received in the

3'd cited is returned herewith to the Transport

Commissioner and he is requested to acknowledge the

recelpt of the same."

c)The relevant Dortion of theimouqned

proceedinqs vide R.No.2725/V3/V2l2OO4, dated

LO.O2.2O2L ofthe resoondent No.2-the Transoort

Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hvderabad issued to

the oetitioner herein, is extracted hereunder:

..ORDER:

A surprise check conducted by the ACB Officials

over the office of the JTC & S/RTA, Hyderabad on 05_

t2

sN..,

W.P.No.J5400 of 2021

03-2004. The Government in the reference 1't cited,

has requested the Transport Commissioner to initiate

Departmental Action against Sri. K. Sudershan, Senior

Assistant and (3) others. Accordingly the followlng

charges were framed against Sri K. Sudeshan, Sr. Asst

vide reference 2nd cited.

Cha rges:

"Charge- 1:

He was indulging in practice of collectlng illegal

amount or mamools from the owners of the vehicles

through a private person namely Sri,M.Gopala Krishna,

engaged by him and collected bribe amount of

Rs.12,850/- for him and other officials, was found and

seized by the ACB officials from the possession of

M.Gopala Kristina at the time of surprise check on 05-

03-2004.

Cha rge- 2:

He has allowed Sri M.Gopala Krishna on 05-03-

2004 to do official work on behalf of him'

And failed to malntain absolute lntegrity In

violation of the A.P.Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964'

13

SN, J

W.P.No.35400 of 2021

Thus, Sri.K.Sudarshan by his above mentioned

acts has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty

and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and

thereby contravened Rule 3 (1) & (2) of APCS

(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

On receipt of the charge memo in reference 3'd

cited, the charged officer submitted his explanation. On

not being satisfied with the explanation an enquiry

officer was appointed and the enquiry officer held the

charges against Sri. K. Sudharshan, Sr. Asst as charge

no.1 is not proved and charge no.2 is proved.

The findings of the enquiry officer were not

accepted and punlshment of withholding of four annual

grade increments with cumulative effect was inflicted

against Sri. K. Sudershan, Senior Assistant vide

reference 4th cited

Aggrieved by the orders of punishment in the

reference 5th cited, Sri K. Sudharshan, Sr. Asst

preferred an appeal petition before the Government.

After careful examination of the appeal petition

Government rejected the appeal petition of Sri. K.

Sudharshan, Sr. Asst in reference 6th cited.

Aggrieved by the orders of the punishment and

rejection of appeal petition, Sri K. Sudharshan, Sr. Asst

filed an O. A. No.B592 /2OtO before the Hon,ble APAT.

Keeping in view of the orders of the Hon,ble Tribunal in

l4

SN. J

W.P.No.35400 of 2021

the reference 7rh cited and as per orders of the

Government in the reference 12rh cited, the punishment

of withholding of four annual grade Increments with

cumulative effect imposed by the Disclplinary Authority

i.e., Transport Commissioner against Sri K. Sudershan,

Sr. Asst was set aside in the reference 13th cited.

Further as per orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal

and the Government, Sri K Sudershan, Sr. Asst was

directed to appear before the Disclplinary Authority in

person and to submit his written statement of defence

with regard to Charge No.1, vide reference 14th cited.

In reference 15th cited, Sr K. Sudershan, Sr. Asst

submitted his Written Statement of Defence

After careful examlnation of the Statement of

Defence of Sri K. Sudershan, Sr. Asst in accordance

with rules as advised by the Government in the

reference 12th cited and earller Enquiry OFficer report

dated: 19-08-2008, who enquired the case against the

said Sri K. Sudershan, Sr. Asst wherein held the

charge-1 as Not Proved. With regard to Charge-2 the

Inquiry Officer reported that there is handwriting of Sri

Gopala Krishna found in various files/records

clinchingly establish that he was assisting

Sudershan, Sr. Asst and held Proved'

wh ich

Sri K.

Hence, the punishment of "stoppage of Two

Increments with Cumulative Effect" is hereby

awarded against Sri K. Sudershan' Sr' Asst'

l5

DISUSSIONANDoCLUS

SN. J

W.P.No.35400 of 2021

nbhtf

Sri K. Sudershan' Sr' Asst is informed that

there is a provision under Rule 33 of TSCS (CC&A)

Rules, 1991 (adapted) for preferring an appeal to the

Government against these orders and he may prefer an

appeal within a period of 3 months from the date on

which a copy of this order is served upon him "

ION:

t

5 e ur

lor in

5,2 The imPugned order of

2725/v3lv2/2004,

dated

punishment of stoppage of

fo I

respondent No. 2 vide R'No'

lO.O2.2O2l, imPosing the

two annual grade increments

I

t

submissions:

5.1 Respondent No' 2 had no power to review its own

orders under the TSCS (CC&A) Rules' 1991

with cumulative effect, is contrary to the earlier orders

issuedbyrespondentNo.2VideR'No.2725lV3/v212004,

dated 26.07.2017.

5.3 In view of the fact that the original punishment

order

vide R.No.2725/V3/2004

dated 17.06.2010 had atready

been set aside by the Respondent No. 2 vide proceedings

No. 2725/V3/VZ/2004

dated 26.07.20t7, the impugned

proceedings

of the Respondent No. 2 dated 17.06.2010, the

proceedings

of the Respondent No. 1 dated 01.04.2011, and

the consequential order dated 10.02.2021of the respondent

No.2 are wholly unwarranted and biased.

5.4 The respondents had not followed the due procedure

as contemplated under Rule 21 of the APCS (CC & A) Rules,

1991. Further, witnesses were not examined as mandated

under sub-rule 10(b) of the APCS (CC & A) Rutes, 1991.

5.5 The impugned order dated IO.O2.2O2I ctearly

indicates that even before the communication of the inquiry

report, a pre-decision had been taken unilaterally, thereby

resulting in a clear violation of the principles of natural

justice.

l6

Bad0nheforeid

b

SN, J

W.P.No.35400

ot" 202 t

arb tonI

I

un

earlno

te

17

SN, J

w.P.No.35400 of 2021

contensthat thCDitioner rsentiled for the relief

r nthres rtition

6. Learned sistantGovernment leaderfor

ervi-IIIea rion of s n

relie e nt e h

couner affidavit filed onbehalf of rsoondentsDuts

hf,wrn mts

6.1 In view of the Fact that one charge against the

petitioner had been proved by the Inquiry Officer, a request

was made to the Government to obtain the advice of the

advisory body in vigilance matters with respect to the

proposed punishment of stoppage of two annual grade

increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner

herein.

6.2 In response thereto, the Government, vide Memo

No.11736/Tr.Vig./20t0, dated 16.10.2020, informed that

the advisory body had advised the imposition of the

punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments

with cumulative effect. Consequently, the Government

IE

SN. J

.P.No.15400 of 2021

Transport Commissioner

punishment of stoppage

intimated the Government, and the

of two annual grade increments

was imposed against the petitioner'

6.3 In view of the fact that the A P'A T', by its order

dated 11.11.2013, remitted the case back to respondent No'

1in O.A., who is the disclplinary authority, i'e'' respondent

No. 2 in the present writ petition and in accordance with the

said directions, the case was considered afresh and orders

were passed.

sedonthe abve bsl rn

slsntverenPlerntdstre

theimDuonedorder dated10.o2.2021

no illeqlitv i

dentNo.1andhence,the

oasedbv theresDo n

muneroedinwarrano interen t

u ndheit toli disse

7. Reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

petitioner in response to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf

of the resPo n de nts.

t9

SN. J

W.P.N0.35400 of 2021

8. A bare perusal of the averments made in the counter-

affidavit clearly indicates that the subject issue pertains to

the year 2004, a surprise check was conducted by the ACP

officials on 05.03.2004, charges were framed and an Inquiry

Officer was appointed, and that, after completion of the

inquiry, the Inquiry Officer held Charge No.1 against the

petitioner as not proved and Charge No.2 as proved.

9. A bare perusal of the averments made in paragraph

No.4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

respondents clearly indicates the specific stand of the

respondents that the disciplinary authority, i.e., the then

Transport Commissioner, agreed with the findings of the

Inquiry Officer in respect of the petitioner and all the

charged officers, holding that only the 'off-record by private

person' constituted a grave offence, and accordingly

proposed to impose the punishment of postponement of two

annual grade increments with cumulative effect, and

forwarded the proposals vide letter dated 2g.10.2006.

20

SN. J

W.P.No.35400 of202l

10, A bare perusal of the contents of the letter dated

28.10.2006, filed as a material document along with the

counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents herein'

clearly indicates that, at Column No' 3 of the inquiry report'

the disciplinary authority, unilaterally agreed with the

findings of the Inquiry Officer, proposed to punish the

petitioner by postponement of four annual grade increments

with cumulative effect. The said remarks in Column No 3 of

the inquiry report are extracted hereunder:

"Agreed with the findings of Enquiry Officer'

Since handling the office records by a prlvate

person is a grave offence and proposed to punish by

postponing of four annual increments with

cumulative effect' "

11. A bare perusal of the averments made in the counter-

affidaVitfiledonbehalfoftherespondentsclearlyindicates

that the subject issue had been predetermined' and that the

Government Memo dated |t'07 '20t7 '

the Inquiry Officer's

report dated 19.08 2006, and the proposal of the Transport

Commissloner to impose the punishment of stoppage of two

annual grade increments with cumulative effect formed the

basis for passing the impugned order against the petitioner

herein,withoutconductingadUeenqUiryaSmandated

under the rules, thereby resulting in a clear violation of the

procedure contemplated under Rule 21 of the Rules' and the

SameisinclearViolationofprinciplesofnaturaljustice'

L2, A bare perusal of the averments made in paragraph

No.14ofthecounter-affidavit,whichrefertothecharges

and findings of the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner

herein, clearly indicates that not even a single person from

whom illegal amounts/mamools

were allegedly collected by

M. Gopal Krishna were examined or produced during the

21

SN, J

w.P.No.35400 of 2021

e nq u lry.

13. Thls Court opines that the action of the respondents'

innotexaminingevenaSingleWitness,iSingrossViolation

of the principles embodied under Rule 2!(2) of the TSCS

(CC&A) Rules, 1991'

L4.hi u oINtht clrlr

t rnrln te

et n

t rintut msoRul2L

22

SN, J

W.P.N0.35400 of 2021

rsnto.1 hd eed thdiaen

factoanddirectedreSDondent No.2to communtcate

haethetitierndheaid nnhe

part ofthe resDOndensamountstoaost-declsional

hfln eonenN2ein etstia

th faied to ndenenct

dtnea

aed on hedictatest ofresDOnde No.1-nt

Government.

15.hiCorttnthtewantn det

caionofind tohef ofhcaade

tirsuetsehdenretertn atnt

thtitiertnlear violtion ofe I ncrleof

natural iusticeanddue o du reroce for theconduct of

1nulunerule12ofhTcscc

ul 1 Tscrtfrth tn a sr rth

ande Rul2L ofET cc Rle

1991,the disciolinarv authoritv is reouired to

communicate the reasons for disaoreement, if anv.

HoWEverthe

ncaere

ln re

nnNot

o

t

I

tin

auhrlco

SN, J

W.P.No.J5400 of 2021

et and called frf r

from the oetiioner onlv after the decision had alreadv

been determined. Hence, this Court ooines that the

entire inouirvconducted aoainst the oetitioner stands

vitiated.

16. The Aoex Curt in a iudoment reood in 2OO9

(2) SCC s7O in Rooo Sinoh Neoi vPuniab National

Bank & Others, dated 19.12.2OO8 heldhat the order

nf fha

D linaArrihirr rn/ r lczrthA rla

A r rlhari nt- il aanCA'T c rnd hanaa that lv unce

orders must be based on recorded reasons. At Dara 23

he sai

"23.

rlicainlin=rrr

a

r rth.riitv rlca

"h

aIala

oerved a

Furthermore, the order of the

authoritv are not suoported bv anv reason. As the

orders oassed by them have severe civil

consequences, appropriate reasons should have

been assiqned.

The materials brouqht on recoDoi ntinq

out the ouiltare reouired to be Droved. A decision

must be arrived at onome evidence. which is

leoally admissible, The provisions of the Evidence

Act mav not be aoDlicable in a deDartmental

24

SN. J

W.P.No.35400 of 2021

Droceedinbut te o nciolesof natral iurce

are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on

merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the

same could not have been sustained The inferences

drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not

supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well

known, however hrgh may be, can under no

circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal

proof. "

18. This Court opines that the respondents herein dealt

with the subject issue in a routine and casual manner/

ignoring the fact that it is a quasi-judicial matter involving

the service career of the petitioner as well as the petitioner's

fundamental rights. The respondents failed to act

independently and preiudged the subject issue even before

communicating the inquiry report to the petitioner' Further,

the impugned orders were passed mechanically, without

j ustification or valid reasons.

19. ThisCou rt oDtnes thati ustice mustnot onlvbe

dobut stlf ea be n in th

ent case aDDa re ntlv there ifailure in iusticeas tspres

erusal ofevident on the iouonedDroceedino s,

25 SN' J

w.P.No.35400

of 2021

of the

t

r

r

r

r

s

r

20.

case,

a) The aforesaid

facts and circumstances

b) The submissions

made by the learned

counsel

appearing

on behalf of the petitioner and the learned

Government

Pleader for Education

appearing

on

behalf of the resPondents'

c) The law laid down bY the APexcourt in the

judgments (referred toand extracted above)'

d) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at

paragraPh Nos.5 to 19 of the Present

order'

zo

w.p.No.3s4oo

ofs2;*;i

Thewntitilsallo

athe Duq

t o

we

ed

r

7 V

d

I

s

No7L736/vIIt/2/2oo-3 TrI

nsrt

R&

De

a

4d

No7,and he suea oer id

t

ve

R.N272v3/v2oo4,dto.o2.2o Dssbv

re

etNo.2arehere seas

bvt ide.The

reDodetared dtocnsidhereuestof

rt

orIa lt

th Dtitionerrn ra

wasDerthe

DEttoner'slt

eoaentitlemenwtIn riedfor

t,

(4

weksf) romthed freceID acoDVotth

tt

s

orderHowevet,theshatlbenoorerascosts

As a sequel/ the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending in the Writ petition

shall also stand closed.

,TRUE COPY//

SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI

ASSISTANT

REGISTRAR

6

SECTION OFFICERTo,

1. The Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buitding Department, State of

Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Transport, Telangana State, Khairatabad, Hvderabad'

3. One CC to SRI' RANGARAJULA RAJASEKHARA RAo' Advocate [oPucl

4. Two CCs to GP^FoR SERVICES- lll ,High Court for the State of Telangana

At Hyderabad lUU ll

5. Two CD CoPies

,{

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0411212025

ORDER

WP.No.3S400 of 2021

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

WITHOUT COSTS

CC TODAY

1 \.L

.r

1.r f{

o

+t

/\

(- r'

t;

.. I

\..\

1 6 JUN 2026

@,.t

rclelar,