B.JAYA SREE Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Proceedings No.VSII(2)/1301/2012, dt.7/12/2021 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits including arrears of increments, difference in salary and all other service benefits under Rule 20 of CS (CCA) Rules to the petitioner in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner was recruited as Junior Assistant in the year 1996 and thereafter, she was promoted as Senior Assistant in 2004 and later as Tahsildar in the year 2011. It is submitted that on 6/6/2012, a charge memo was issued by invoking Rule 20 of the CS (CCA) Rules and in the Annexures-II and III to the charge memo, the contents were mentioned as nil. It is submitted that the respondents have thus issued the charge memo without any basis. The petitioner submits that she has submitted her explanation on 6/12/2012, and on 11/8/2012, the respondents appointed an enquiry officer and after more than 9 years, suddenly vide proceedings dt.28/4/2021, an oral enquiry was conducted by the Special Deputy Collector, Godavarikhani and the enquiry report was furnished on 28/4/2021. It is submitted that no procedure was followed while conducting the departmental enquiry even though a charge memo was issued under Rule 20 of CS (CCA) Rules and no documents were filed nor marked. The petitioner submits that the enquiry officer, though observed that there is no documentary evidence about collusion of the petitioner with quarry lease holders in changing the sub-division to create the way to the leaseholders, held the charges partly proved and on the basis of the same, the respondents have imposed a major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, submits that the order under challenge is totally without any application of mind and is a non-speaking order. He submits that the charge memo has to be issued by the appointing/disciplinary authority, whereas in the case of the petitioner, it has been initiated by the District Collector and therefore, the initiation of the proceedings itself is not proper and not in accordance with CS (CCA) Rules. He further submits that there is an inordinate delay of 9 years in conducting the enquiry and that too, an oral enquiry and therefore, the respondents have not followed the rules particularly Rule 20 of CS (CCA) Rules. Therefore, he seeks setting aside of the charge memo and all the consequential proceedings thereafter.