ANEMONI NARSIMLU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the departmental proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the Charge Memo vide proceedings dated 24.07.2021 have not been concluded and his explanation dated 02.08.2021 to the Charge Memo has not been considered.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis on 01.02.1999 as Water Shed Development Team (WDT) for a fixed pay of Rs.3,000/-. His salary was enhanced to Rs.4,000/-. Thereafter, he was promoted as Mandal Technical Assistant (MTA) and worked at Kulkcherla Mandal, Vikarabad District, and he was paid Rs.5,000/-. He was then transferred to Peddemul Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and worked there until he was promoted as Additional Program Officer (Incharge) of Parigi Mandal, Vikarabad District, in the office of Mandal Praja Parishad, Parigi. A complaint against the petitioner and others was lodged in the month of March, 2021, by one Bantu Chakravarthi before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Ranga Reddy District. Pursuant thereto, a trap was laid against the petitioner on 31.03.2021 and a crime was registered against him and others in FIR No.04/RCT-RRR/2021, dated 31.03.2021 for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120 (b) and 34 of IPC. The petitioner and others were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. As they were in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, the respondent No.3 has suspended the petitioner vide proceedings No.E/EGS/59/2017, dated 05.04.2021, with effect from 03.04.2021 until further orders. Subsequently, proceedings No.E/EGS/59/2017, dated 29.04.2021, were issued terminating the services of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that without initiating any disciplinary proceedings and without affording an opportunity of hearing, his services were terminated. He challenged the termination order by filing an appeal before the respondent No.2 on 29.05.2021. The respondent No.2 has disposed of the said appeal on 13.07.2021 and remanded the case to the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 6.5.1(iii) of SRDS Disciplinary Rules for FTEs issued by the Chief Executive Officer, SRDS vide circular dated 08.01.2013. Pursuant thereto, the Charge Memo dated 24.07.2021 was issued to the petitioner framing two charges. In the first charge, it was alleged that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.4,62,000/- for doing official favour and he was caught red-handed during the ACB trap while accepting a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as the first instalment. The second charge is that the petitioner was in judicial remand for more than 48 hours. The petitioner alleges that he has submitted an explanation dated 02.08.2021 to the respondent No.3 refuting the allegations made in the two charges and that at the time of laying the trap, he was not present at the place of occurrence and no amount was recovered from him. The petitioner further states that he is the breadwinner in his family and the respondents have stopped paying him the salary. He pleads that a direction be issued to the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against him within a time frame.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3.