B. Nagaraj Goud vs State Of Telagnana

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the CCL’s Proceedings No.VS II(2)/323/2019 dt.19.03.2019 imposing the penalty of reduction to the lower post of Deputy Tahsildar for a period of two years or till retirement, whichever is earlier, as erroneous, irrational, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to set aside the same and hold that the petitioner is entitled to continue in the post of Tahsildar with all consequential benefits.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds on 17.07.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as a Senior Assistant and given posting as Additional Revenue Inspector. Thereafter, on 28.02.2009, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar and later as Tahsildar on 31.05.2017. It is submitted that during the period 13.07.2017 to 07.10.2018, the petitioner worked as Tahsildar in the office of the Tahsildar, Nizamsagar Mandal. On 13.08.2019, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo basing on a report in a daily newspaper on 15.06.2019, i.e., “Agani Revenue Akramalu” stating that the petitioner was involved in committing irregularities in issuing eight appointment orders to the Village Revenue Assistants, out of which, two were on compassionate grounds and the other six were under abolished Bari-Bari system without prior permission/direction from the Collector, Kamareddy and that the said orders were issued during the ban period. It was further alleged that the petitioner had taken huge amounts from VRAs with the help of one N.Chandra Shaker, Junior Assistant, Office of the Tahsildar, Nizamsagar Mandal for issuing the appointment orders.

Thereafter, on 19.06.2019, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner as per the provisions of Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The petitioner vide letter dt.07.09.2019 submitted a detailed explanation stating that the appointment orders of Village Revenue Assistants were based on the Circular issued by the District Collector, Nizamabad dt.30.03.2015 and DRO, Nizamabad dt.02.05.1992 and in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1849, Revenue (V.O), dt.25.10.2005 and that the Collector issued permission to regularise the appointment in the name of one person in the case of Bari Bari system duly taking the ‘No Objection Certificates’ from all other Hissadars for the appointment as Village Revenue Assistants and hence, he followed all relevant guidelines. The Additional Collector, Kamareddy was appointed as the enquiry officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy was appointed as the Presenting Officer to enquire into the charges framed and the enquiry was conducted and the petitioner attended two hearings and on 14.07.2020, the District Collector, Kamareddy has furnished the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, wherein the enquiry officer has given findings,—

(i) that the petitioner has not followed any rules and regulations in the appointment of Village Revenue Assistants on compassionate grounds and regular appointments;

(ii) that the petitioner has issued appointment orders simply on the Circular instructions received from the Collector, Nizamabad, 1992 without following the provisions and without mentioning the qualification, the date of death and the date of application for compassionate appointment.

On the basis of the said enquiry report, the 2nd respondent has imposed punishment of reduction to lower post of Deputy Tahsildar from the post of Tahsildar for a period of two years or till retirement, whichever is earlier. Challenging the said punishment, the present Writ Petition was filed.

On 30.04.2021, this Court while issuing notice, ordered I.A.No.1 of 2021 suspending the impu\gned order dt.19.03.2021 on the ground that the punishment imposed is not in the list of punishments under Rule 9 of the Telangana CCA Rules, 1991. On 06.05.2021, the petitioner submitted another representation to respondent No.3 who issued proceedings to report at Tahsildar’s office, Madnoor, but for the month of April, 2021, no salary was paid to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. Kanakaiah, while relying upon the averments in the affidavit filed along with the Writ Petition, submitted that the respondents have issued double punishment, i.e., two punishments at a time, i.e., reduction to lower post and loss of seniority, to the petitioner. He submitted that such a punishment is not sustainable. He further submitted that reduction to a lower post is not one of the punishments enumerated under Rule 9 and therefore, the CCLA could not have imposed such punishment on the petitioner and that too without following the due procedure under Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. It is submitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of chief-examination and cross-examination of the witnesses, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the order dt.19.03.2021 be set aside with all consequential benefits by holding that the petitioner is entitled to continue in the post of Tahsildar with all consequential benefits.

Learned Government Pleader for Services-III is heard for the respondents. He submitted that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and it is the petitioner who has not followed the rules before making any appointment to the posts of VRAs and stated that there is no case of two punishments being imposed by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner has been reverted to the lower post which is only temporary and not a permanent reversion and therefore, it cannot be considered as a punishment. The learned Government Pleader also placed reliance upon the averments made in the counter affidavit.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noticed that the respondents have filed a stay vacate petition in I.A.No.3 of 2021, while petitioner had filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 for a direction not to interfere with the discharge of the duties of the petitioner as Tahsildar, Gandhari Mandal, Kamareddy District. It is further noticed that against the interim order granted in I.A.No.1 of 2021, the respondents have filed W.A.No.251 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this Court by order dt.11.04.2022 has directed this Court to consider all the grounds raised in the Writ Petition and to dispose of the matter. Thus, the matter has been remitted back to this Court and on going through the material on record, it is noticed that the respondents have filed a counter affidavit along with stay vacate petition and the petitioner has also filed reply affidavit and therefore, the pleadings are complete. In view of the same, the Writ Petition itself was taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of by way of this order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that though there have been allegations against the petitioner of making irregular appointments, none of the appointments have been cancelled by the respondents and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the petitioner in the appointments. As regards the allegation of receiving money for issuing the appointment orders, he submitted that the said allegation has not been proved by the respondents. He submitted that there may be irregularities but there is no illegality in issuing the appointment orders by the petitioner. As regards the query raised by this Court as to why the petitioner did not approach the appellate authority against the order of punishment, he submitted that the appellate authority being the 2nd respondent himself, the petitioner has lost the opportunity of appeal and had to file the Writ Petition before this Court.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is noticed that the charge against the petitioner was that he has issued appointment letters to six persons on compassionate grounds and to two others on Bari Bari system. As regards compassionate appointments, the allegation is that he has not looked into the date of application and whether the application was within the time prescribed. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, none of the appointments have been cancelled by the respondents, therefore, the said appointments are deemed to have been legal if not regular. In such circumstances, the allegation that the petitioner has issued appointment orders without jurisdiction or without verification of the relevant documents cannot be sustained. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegation of receipt of money has also not been proved. The regularisation of services under Bari Bari system has also been approved by the District Collector. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any error or any irregularity in issuing the said appointment orders.

In view of the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to set aside the order of reversion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and direct the respondents to reconsider the punishment to be awarded to the petitioner for the irregularities committed by him, if it so chooses.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.