C. Sudarshan v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-07-29. C. Sudarshan v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT P ETITION NO:10759 oF 2020 Between: C. Sudarshan, S/o Ch_andraiah (Late), Age 47 Years, Occ. Panchayat Secretary- Gr, ll, Gram Panchayat, Kammadanam, Faroq Nagar [/landal, Ranga Reddy Districi. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telan-gana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Emloyment Dept. , Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad -500022. 2 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Emloyment Dept. , P. R. Bhavan, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, (P. W. ), Ranga Reddy District At Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad. 4. The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District At Lakdi-ka-Pool, Hyderabad. ...
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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of fi/andamus by declaring the entire action of the respondents , particularly the entire action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the present lmpugned Show Cause Notice vide Proc. 582912014-41(Pts), dated 18-06-2020 by entertaining the perverse reporl of the 3rd enquiry officer, dated 15-10-2019 and calling explanation from the petitioner is an empty formality, as the 3rd respondent already taken a decision to impose major penality with predetermined mind, is as highly illegal , arbitrary, unjust , improper, colorable exercise of power, shockingly disproportionate and without jurisdiction and set aside the same.
b) Consequently to hold that the entire Procedure adopted by the respondents for issuing the present lmpugned Show Cause Notice vide Proc. 5829l2O14-A1(Pts), dated 18-06-2020 by the 3rd respondent not only illegal, contrary to the CCA Rules including various Judicial Pronouncements in the subject matter and the petitloner herein entitled for all consequential benefits such further promotion etc. and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 operation of the lmpugned Show Cause Notice vide Proc. 582912014' A1(Pts), dated 18-06-2020 of the 3'o respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.
NAVEEN RAO WRIT NO 59 of ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Plead. er. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the show cause notice dated 18. 6. 2020. By this show cause notice, petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation as to why major punishment of reduction to lower time scale of pay and Grade I, cannot be imposed on him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner sought to raise several contentions including manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted, conducting successive enquiries and not observing principles of natural justice etc. 4. Petitioner participated in the enquiry resulting in enquiry officer submitting his report dated 15. 10. 2019 holding four charges as proved, one charge as partly proved and one charge as not proved' copy 1 of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and. he was asked to submit his explanation. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 25. Ll. 2olg.
After considering the explanation, the present show cause notice is issued. In other words, this is a second show cause notice' India, the Service After amendment to Article 311 of the Constitution of Rules are also amended and issuing second show cause notice is dispensed with. After considering the explanation offered on the findings of the enquiry officer holding the charges as proved, it is open to the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and there is no requirement to issue notice on what punishment is proposed to be imposed. v, 5' That being so, by the impugned second show cause notice, additional opportunity is provided to the petitioner. He can avail the said opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority not to impose the punishment and punishment proposed is grave.
Thus, the petitioner can not assail the show cause notice on the ground that it is indicating the punishment, particularly when there is no requirement to issue second show cause notice indicating the nature of punishment to be imposed. This court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit his explanation raising all objections as available to him in law in response to the show cause notice issued to him on 18'6'2o2o' It is needless to observe that on submission of explanation, same would be objectively considered and appropriate decision would be taken as warranted by law. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, stand closed SD/- M. MANJ ASSISTANT REGI R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. S-. Satyan arayana Rao, Advocate (OpUC) 2. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, nigh Court for the State_oJ T_elangana at HyderabaO jOUf; ^ 3.
Two CD Copies. PIV \ *--- HIGH COURT DATED:2910712020 He s TA 1 e o 1 4 o * * fraJ ORDER WP. No. 10759 of 2020 Dismissing the WP Without costs. \-\ \ @ )-O \3\S
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.