S. Ramana v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SARATH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-13. S. Ramana v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 33021 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDE (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX NT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO:9992 OF 2023 Between: S. Ramana, S/o. Sita Ram, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Police Constable, O/o. TSSP (lR), ll Battalion, Adilabad, Adilabad District . PETITIONER ATT[,] '1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3. The Additional Director General of Police, TSSP Battalion, Hyderabad. 4. The Commandant, 2nd Bn. TSSP (lR), Yapalaguda, Adilabad District.
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the RC. No. 0ZA6IMPR/2022 (D. O. No. 720120221 dated 09. 11. 2022 issued by the 4th respondent wherein imposing the punishment of PPI for one year without effect and the consequential orders issued by the 3rd respondent vide RC. No. AGlAppl31l2023 (ROO. No. 15/2023) dated 18. 04. 2023 wherein rejecting the appeal submitted by the petitioner is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional in violation of rules and set aside the same with a consequential direction to consider my claim for appointment by transfer in AR constable. (Prayer is amended as per C. O dt. 0210312026 in lA 01/2026) . A.
NO: 1OF 2023 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 suspend the Proceedingrs in RC. No. 02/A6/ MPR/ 2022 D O. No. 720 / 2022 dated Ogl11l2o22 issued by the 4th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents: SMT A. SAWASREE, AGP FOR HOME (SERVTCES) The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PEIITION No. 9992 of 2or23 DATE: L3. O4. 2O26 Between: S. Ramana .... Petitioner 1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department and three others . Respondents ORDER: 1. The writ petition is filed questioning the Proc. RC. No. O2l46lMPR/ 2022 (DO. No. 72O 2022l. , dated / 09. 1 L. 2022 issued by the respondent No.
4 imposing punishment of postponement of Increment for one year without cumulative effect and the consequential orders issued by the respondent No. 3 in Rc. No. A6l APP No. 15/2023l,, dated /31 12023 (ROO 18. 04 . 2023 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. z SKJ 2. Heard Sri N. Ramesh, learned Counsel for the petiti<lner and Smt. A. Satyasree, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home (Services) appearing for the respondents. 3. Ihe learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the r€:spondent No. 4 initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by framing Articles of Charge vide IVIemo C. No. 02 /A6lI/. PRl2O22 dated 25. 05. 2022 under Rule 22 of the TGCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for brevity'the Rules, 1991) on the allegation that he threatened his stepmother to give divorce to his father. The petitioner's stepmc,ther also filed a criminal case against the petitioner and his brother vide FIR No.
22/2O22 under Sections 498-A and 5O6 read with 34 IPC on the file of the Women Police Station, Adilabad, and the szune is pendingl before the competent Criminal Court. \4. Th e learned Counsel for the petitioner further \ submitsr that in response to the notice issued by the t, L E I t SK,J respondents, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30. 05. 2022, stating that when they questioned their stepmother for not taking proper care of their father, who had fallen ill due to paralysis, she lodged a false complaint against them. However, the respondent No. 4, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry, passed orders imposing the punishment of postponement of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect vide Proc. RC No. A6IMPR/2O22, DO No. 72Ol2O22 dated 09. 11. 2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3, which came to be dismissed on 18. 04.
2023 without considering explanation of the petitioner and said orders are impugned in the instant writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 imposed the punishment without following the prescribed procedure under Rule-2o and 22 o{ Rules, L99l and the respondent No. 3 rejected the \ SKJ appea. l mechanically without considering the appeal filed by th. e petitioner and requested to allow the allow the writ by setting aside the impugned orders. F'etition 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of hi:; contentions placed reliance on the following Judgnrent: ):. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ro;nt Pra. kash 1 Singh 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, basing on the'counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4, submits that the Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Adilabad, vide Letter No. 59/WPS-Add/ 2022 ()9. O3. 2O22, dated rnformed the respondent No. 4 about the involvement of the petitioner in Crime No.
22/2O22 registered for the offences under Sections 498-4 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Basing on the said report, the Assistant Commandant conducted a preliminary enquiry SCC ()nline SC 891 '2025 t I SK,J by recording the statements of relevant witnesses and submitted the report on 10. O5. 2022. In the said report, it was revealed that the petitioner had harassed his stepmother, Smt. Jayasheela, demanded. over phone to give divorce to his father and forcibly obtained her signature on an agreement prepared by him. In view of the prima facie evidence regarding the petitioner's misconduct, a Charge Memo was issued under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1991. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 3O. O5. 2O22 and upon consideration of the memorandum of charges, the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the material on record, the respondent No.
4 imposed the punishment of postponement of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect on future increments. The respondent No. 3, upon due consideration, rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and there are no valid grounds to interfere with the impugned orders and requested to dismiss the writ petition v I SK,J 8. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is a Pol:ce Constable and the respondent authorities have issued Articles of Charge under Rule 22 of the Rules, 199 I and after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 imposed the minor punishment of postponement of increment without cumulative effect for one year in Proc. RC No 02/A6/MPR/2022 (DO No. 72O/2o22), dated 09. 1t. 2O22 and the same was confirmed by respondent No. 3 in RC No. t6 / App l3L /2023 (ROO No. LS l2o23l, dated 18. o4. '. 2023 9.
The main contention of the petitioner is that the responrlents/disciplinary authority without following the RuIe 22 of the TGCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 imposed impugn ed punishment merely basing on the preliminary inquiry report, without conducting the enquiry as contem clated under Sub-rules 3 to 18 of Rule-2O as rnentiorred in Rule 22 (bl of the Rules, 1991. i il I SK,J 10. Admittedly, the punishment was imposed on the ground that the petitioner and his brother harassed their stepmother and basing on her complaint a criminal case was registered. The record clearly shows that the petitioner submitted his explanation to the Articles of Charge.
Thereafter, only basing on the preliminary inquiry report, without conducting any enquiry, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and without issuing any show-cause notice informing the petitioner about the finding of the enquiry as required under Rule 22 (a) of the Rules, 1991, the disciplinary authority straightaway imposed punishment and the appellate authority also confirmed the same which is contrary to \ Rule 22 of the Rules, L991. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 4 and the consequ. ential order of respondent No. 3 are liable to be set aside and remand the matter for following the procedure as contemplated under the Rules, 1991. 8^: SK,J 1 1. With the above findings, the writ petition 1S dispcsed of by setting aside the Proc. RC No. 0! l/A6 (DO No. 72O /MPR/2022 l2O22l, dated 09. 1 1. 2022 issued by respondent No. 4 and the consequential orders in RC No. A6lApp (ROO l3l/2023 No. 15 /2023l', dated 18. 04.
2023 issued by the respondent No. 3 and the matter is remanded back to the respondent authorities for conducting inquiry from the stage ,rf appointment of the Enquiry Officer as per Rule- 22 of the Rule, L991. No order as to costs. Ivliscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. SWAMY SD'. K. BHAVANI ASSISTANT REETRAR ,/TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Prirrcipal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad' State of Telangana. 2. The Direrctor General of Police, state of Telangana, Lakdikapool' Hyderabad' 3. The Adclitional Director General of Police, TSSP Battalion' Hyderabad' yapalaguda, Adilabad District' Bn. TSSP (lR), 4. The cornmandant, 2nd 5. One CC to SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH' Advocate [OPUC] High court for the State of 6. Two ccs to Gp FOR HOME(SERVICES), Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT] 7. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP hf/ HIGH COURT DATED i 1310412026 TbtE 5 ORDER o (J 22 APfr 2S25 z WP. No.
9992 of 2023 * r,,l'J DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ,L L t\
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.