Danday Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telangana,

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Judgment date: 2025-12-11

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-11. Danday Venkateshwarlu v. The State of Telangana,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

[ 348e J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION :26121 OF 2025 Between: Danday Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Danday Sree Ramulu, Aged about: 49 years, Occ: Bailiff/Field Assistant (Under Suspension), R/o. H. No. 1 3-1 15, Flat No F1 , OM Sree Nilayam, P & T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Law Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana 2 The High Court of Telangana, Rep. by its Registrar General, At High Court, Hyderabad, Telangana. 3 The Disciplinary Authority Cum Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist. , L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. 4 The Enquiry Officer cum V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist. , L. B.

Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana (R2 is formal party to the above W. P. and no relief is claimed against R2) ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia'praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue appropriate order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2. and 3 to reinstate the Petitioner as Bailiff/Filed Assistant pending domestic Enquiry No. 04t2024 before the Respondent No. 4 consequently setaside the rejection order dated 3010612025 passed by the Respondent No. 3. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.

2 and 3 to pay the arreais of Subsist-ence allowance @ 75% as entitled by the Petitioner under the Telangana Fundamental Rules, by suspending the operation of the rejection order dated 30. 06. 202S, pending domestic enquiry No. 04/2024 before the Respondent No. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. VtJAyA KUMAR GOUD counsel for the Respondent No. 1 & 2: Ms. M. sHALlNt, cp FoR sERVtcES tt counsel for the Respondent No. 3 & 4: SRI vlvEK JAIN, sc FoR Hc The Court made the following: ORDER TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY r'E HoNou*tillt tRI rusrICE SU DDALA CI{ALAPATHI RAO Writ tion t2l 2025 Date: 11. 12. 2025 Between: Danday Venkateshwarlu ... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary (l-aw Department), others' Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana and Respondents ORDER, (per lton'hle Sri,ltrstice P Sum Koshy) Heard Mr. M. Vijaya Kuurar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. M.

Shalini, learned Goverrunent Pleader for Services counsel for respondent II and Mr. Vivek Jain, learned standing - Nos. 3 and 4. Perused the record' has been filed assailing the order 2. The instant writ petition respondent No'3 -annexed dated 30. 06. 2025. Vide the said order, Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner had rejected two claims put forth by the petitioner. Firstly, the claim for enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50oh to 75oh in rerms of FR 53 (1) (ii) (a) and secondly, the claim for rejection of suspension and reinstatement into service. 3. The Authority i. e. , respondent No. 3 has rejected both the above claims. So far as enhancement of subsistence allowance is concerned, the same was rejected in terrns of the aforesaid FR 53 (l) (ii) (a).

This, in the opinion o[ this Bench has been rightly rejected as FR itself specifrcally enurnerates that the subsistence allowance for an employee cannot be raised fiom 50% to 75oh in the event if the person is charged in the criminal cases on charges of corruption, mis-appropriation dernand or acceptance of legal gratification. In the instant case, the petitioner is facing prosecution on the demand of illegal gratification. Therefore, there does not seem to be any scope of interference to the irnpugned order so far as rejection of enhancement of subsistence allowance is concemed. - the revocation of suspension is 4. However, as regards of revocation is for rejection of claim concerned, the only ground At this the disciplinary proceedings' pendency of crirninal case and this Bench through juncture, learned counsel tbr the petitioner took G. o. Ms. No. 526GeneralAdministration(Services. C)Department, datedlg. 08. 200swhereininparagraphNos.

3and4readsasunder: Government' hereby' direct 3- Aecordingly, a that the employees who are under suspension for years shall be reinstated period exceeding t\4)o cases / of the disciplinary pending finalizatictn irt them' However criminal cases against the charged exceptional cases, example' where for completion of Officers are not co-operating for when the / inquirv or investigation could not be completed due to inquiry/investigation the a Committee headed hy pendency of litigation' Departntent' administrattve Secretary of the and an Department concerned Headed o/' the Bureau (where the the Anti Corruption fficial from Bureau Anti Corruption cases are emanated from the Shall review orders of investigation). are the emPloYees who suspension against suspension well before completion continued under suspension and take a decision to of two years of -continue such employees under suspension be. yond two years, duly recording the reasons such a for decision. 4.

All the Departments of Secretariat. Heacls of Departments and District Collectors should the above instructions follow scruptlouslv untl bring it to the notice of all the concerned strict for implementation of the above orders. " 5. The compliance in terms of said G. O. Ms. No. 526 does not seem to have been followed by respondent No. 3 in the course of passing the impugned order is concerned. The plain reading of the portion of G. O. Ms. No. 526, already reproduced earlier, would definitely lead us to the only inference of a requirement by all the disciplinary authorities in ensuring that whether the order of suspension is in operation for quite some time. The Disciplinary Authority should periodically review the same and as per the G. O. Ms. No. 526 it has to be done before two years of a person being placed under suspension 6.

In the instant case, now the petitioner has already suffbred suspension for more than two years and therefore the compliance I as is sought for in terms of G. o. Ms. No. 526 dated 19. 08. 2008 needs the to be adhered upon by all the disciplinary authorities under includes the respondcnt No. 3. State Government which not the should 7. We see no reason why the case of petitioner had been reconsidered or reviewed in terms of G. o. Ms. No. 526 dated 19. 08. 2008. In view of the aforesaid factual narration and the observations of this Court, we are inclined to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 3 to adhere to I t I { G. O. Ms. N o. 526 dated 19. 08. 2007 so f-ar as the petitioner's case is concerned, as he has already remained under suspension for more than two years and an appropriate order be passed upon reviewing the revocation of the suspension the case of the petitioner whether is called for or not. 8.

Let an appropriate order be passed giving reasons ln respect of the conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority arrived at' While passing the said order, we make it clear that the observations made by the Disciplinary Authority when passing the impugned order in Annexure Pl so far as the claim for reinstatement is concerned, shall not come in the way or rather the Disciplinary Authority shall not be in any lnanner influenced by the said observation. It is expected that Disciplinary Authority shall take a decision within outer limit of six (6) weeks. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD. A. V. S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR G /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary (Law Department), The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana 2 The Registrar General, The High Court of Telangana, At High Court, Hyderabad, Telangana.

3 The Disciplinary Authority Cum Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist. , L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. 4 The Enquiry Officer cum V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist. , L. B. Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 5 One CC to SRI M. VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD, Advocate IOPUC] 6 One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, SC FOR HC IOPUC] 7 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl 8 Two CD Copies BN BS IT I i , HIGH COURT DATED i1111212025 THE S Tl ;R € ORDER L) g 0 WP. No. 26121 ot 2025 JAN 2026 z. ,'/ * o Or-- '(1 ? 176. r r' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.