WP/32888/2021 of Kumari G. Govinda Lakshmi Vs The Government of Telangana And Another on 20 February 2026

1. The Government of Telangana, Represented by Honorable Secretary to Government, Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs and Justice.

2. The Honorable High, The Honorable High Court for the State of Telangana, Represented by the Honorable Regrstrar (Vigilance) 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 a Writ, Order or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that

a) Orders issued in G.O.N/Is.No.40, Law (LA, LA and J-Home-Courts.42 ) Department, dated 131071202 1 Government of Telangana and consequential Proceedings in ROC Nos.18'1 5/201 5,54812016,2266/2016 and 7612019- VIGILANCE CELL, dated 1310712021 are illegal and contrary to Article 311of constitution of lndia and apart from it being violative of Article 14, 16,21 and - 300(4) of the Constitution of India.

b) Further the Petitioner is entitled to continue in service till she attains the age of superannuation of 61 years with full salary and allowances and all consequential benef its.

c) Further the Petitioner prays that this Honorable High Court to declare that the punishment imposed ts too harsh and excessive.

IA NO: 10F 2021 PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinth:Circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High C I rrt may be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order in G O Ms'No 'l r' Law (LA LA and J- Home-Courts.A2)Department,datedl3/07/202lGovernrentofTelanganaand consequential Proceedings 76/201 g-VIGILANCE CELL, Petitton. inROCNos.1815t2O15, 948 10'l 6' 226612016 dated 13tO7t2021 pending disposal of the anC Writ CounselforthePetitioner:SRIM.SURENDERRAO,SENIT)RCOUNSELFOR SRI SRINIVASA RAO MAt IRAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SMT. SHALINI, GP FC t SERVICES-Il Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI KOWTURI PAWA\ KUMAR' SC FOR TSHC The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WP.No. 32888 of 2O2l DI.ZO.62.2026 Between Kumari C.Govinda Lakshmi ....Petitioner AND The Government of Telangana & another. Responde nts O R D E R: (Per the Hon'ble Sn Justice Sudd.o.ta Chalapathi Rao)

1. The present Writ petition is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.40, Law (LA, LA&J-Home-Courts.42) Departmenr, d.t.13.OZ.2O2I issued by the Government of Telangana, subjecting the petitioner to major punishment of "compulsory retirement from service,, as Junior Civil Judge, under Clause g Rule 9 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'CCA Rules') and the consequcntial proceedings in ROC.Nos. l8l5/2OtS, 948/2016, 2266/2Ot6 and T6/2otg_ Vigilance Cell, dt. 13.07 .2021 , as illegal, contra., to Article 3 I I

apart from it berng violative of Articles 14, i6 &,21 of the Constitution ol India

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are that, rlr : petitioner r.r,,as selected and apoointed as Junior Civil Judge on 2l.1l.2o}g pursuant to the norification issued by the then Il gh Court for the composite St:rte of Andhra Pradesh in the year ltof)g. ,r-,, u,tr, ,n. petitioner u'ls posted in Kurnool District an,l thereafler, she performed her duties as Junior Civil Judge in ,r rrious Courts in the composite State of A.P., and during trif rrcertion oi the composite Hieh Court for the State of Andl-rra I) adesh. she rvas allocated to the Higtr Court for the State of Telane .r na.

3. Furthcr'. pursuant to the complaints as to ler misconduct, the petitionel' \\,as subjected to departmenta[ :nquiry for the period duri'g ri hich she discharged her duties ar r rr-noor(Adilabad) and Warangal and she u.as ser.r,etl rvith four char 1e memos. The concerned District Judges, bv fcliowing the P - )cedure, issued shoq,-cause notice s directii-rg the petitione r to submit explanations, and tl-re petitioner hzrs subrnitted ex: lanations to the said shor'.-cause notices_ Further, the respon::nts not being satisfied with the explanations of thc pctitioner, have subjected the petitioner to departmental enquiries and appointed the respective Enquiry Officers to conduct enquiry on the four charge memos in accordance rvith the procedure laid don'n under A. P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short 'the rules').

4. For convenience and better understanding, the charges framed and the findings of the Enquiry Olficer recorded, in all the lour Charge Memos are extracted hereunder in tabular format: Article of Charge No. Charge framed CHARGE MEMO I - ROC No.1815/20 1s-vigilance Cell, dt.O6.06.2O17 Thal- you Ms. G.Govinda Lakshmi, Junior Civil Judge, IV Additional J unior Civil Judge, Warang:, while working as Junior Cilil Judgc, Utnoor, Adilabad district, during the relevant period from LO-]-2-2OI3 to 3l-12-2O).3 disposed of 14 calendar cases, as shown in the Annexure I, b-r, taking up the entire process of cxamination of the Accuscd under Section 251 or 239 Cr.P.C.. as the case may be, framed charges, conducted tria,t and pronounced judgment, on the self same day, contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 242 &,254 Cr.P.C., thus giving a go-bye to the cstablished provision of law, acted ilicgaliy, hastily and in hurried manner, for Findings of the Enquiry Officer The cases listed in Annexurc- I and the proceedings/ _;udgmcnts undcr Exs.P8 to P21 shor.v that thc charged ofltccr disposcd of scvcral warrant cases on the sarne day of framing of charges or examination o[ the accused. She did not fix dales for production ol prosecution witnesses as rcquircd uncler Scctions 242 and 254 Cr.P.C. lmmcdiatcly after framing the charge, only one r.l,itness was examined, and the remaining u'itnesses were allorved to be given up by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, arrd judgment u,as pronounccd on thc samc day. Thus, thc chargcd offrcer failed to follovv the maldatory the reasons best known to ou, rovisions of Sections 242 & 254

I \/hich act of yours if proved or establishL.d rvoulcl amount to grave misconduct, unbccoming of a .Judicial officcr within thc meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Se rvices (C-onduct) Rules 1964. ,while so, r,otr have also disposed of C.C.No.t78/20 I3 on 30-12- 20 13 on the self same da;', by examinrlr g onl,r. one victim/injured i.e., Pau:rr Iiousalya Bai, W/o. Ganpath and givcn up the othcr trvo victim s/ inlu red, Viz., .jadhav Sarasr,.,athi and [)au.ar Marritha, u'ho arc tlrr' l.rrimc u itnesses in the sarcl c zrsc along r,vith other witnesses :rncl thus giving a go- byc. to thc proccdure prescribed actcd as zr mute spectator in the procccdings \\,itltou t ad\.ising the APP to c-rarninc the irlurcri in support oi thc Proseclltion case, cansed rl(.nt t() the criminal just ice s\,stem and thereby committ-rl qr ,rrc illegalitl in not examinitrg the other two victims/rn1urcd. for the reasons bcst knorr r.t to r,.orr, u'hicl-r act of yours i1- 1;roved or established worrld irutollnl to grave miscor-rduc't, r,rnltccoming of a judrcial ,,ffr, r.r'irilhrn lll( meanir.]g of Rulc 3 ol A. P Civil Sen,ices Cor-rduct) lRules 1964 While so. or.r l5-0U 2015, har ing receiyed l)tirnirlion from srr. M. Raghunartrl:ur, Supcrintcndcnt, Junior Cn il Jr.rdge's Court, Utnoor, zrboLrt the visit of Prrncipal Disrrict J r"rdge. Adilabad to Utnoor rln the sarne clay at 04:30 PM rcgzLrd r ng the readiness ol the neu4y constructcd Cour.t builcling ar.rd Residenti:rl quartcr at Utnoor for I did not act in with law, resulting 1e of justice, ald thc rr of thr: charged titul es misconduct 3 ol- the Telangara Services (Conduct) irncl according helci )harge Nos. 1&2 Cr.P.C., ar accordancr in miscarri r said beha ' officer corl under Ru lt State Ciril Rules, 19tl.l Articles ol are proved pirl District Ju The evirlt.r establishes 1 District .h:, communicatc, to Utnoor through P\l': the charge.c necessary z inspecLion constructed: residential ( prior intimat oflicer was rr the visit. P$'. ceofPWs1to4 rat the Principal ge (PW,+) had his proposed visit vell in adr.ancc L and 2, directing officer to make -r'angemerlts for r I the newly rurt building and uarters_ Dcspite rn, the charged rt present lnauguratlolt, \ ou intcntio avoided corning there and to the Princt slgs 1PI OCCSS d only tviLh a ma.lafide intenl,ion o[ causing inconvenicnce to thc Principal District Judge, Adilabad, you callcd back the Attender- Sri. Gunavanth Rao, r.r,ho \4,as instructed to be present at the neuly constructcd court building a'long ri,ith the keys and retained him with you :rnd thus in utter insu bordination, dcliberatcly absented yourself ald got Iocked neu,ly constructed building without any authority and retained the attender with you, rvhich act ol yours if proved or established u'ould amount to grave misconduct, unbccoming of a judicial officer r,r'ithin thc meaning of Rule 3 of A.P Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. That you Ms. G. Govinda Lakshmi, q.hilc working as Junior Civil Judge, Utnoor, Adilabad district, despite advice from Sri.G. Gopala Krishna Murthy, the then Principal District Judge, Adilabad and also the then Hon'ble informed that the charge ofhcer was on protocol duty and had sent thc kcys through an attender and shc did not meet PW4 before he left. The lettcr of the Honble High Court datcd 24.08.2015 (Ex.D6) required resenalion of a suite in the Govcrnment (iuest House and dcputation of responsible protocol staff. The charged oflicer made an endorsement accordingly. The ofhcia-l memorandum dated 24.08.20l5 issued by PW4 (Ex.D7) similarly directed deputation of responsiblc staff. The com munication docs not rcquire the chargcd ofltccr to personally accornpar-ry the Honble Judge throughout the visit and that depu t ing responsible sl.a[[ rvas sufflrcient. The trnquiry Officer concludcd thal, despile prior intimation, thc charged ofhcer failed to remain available to receivc and assist the Principal District Judge during ofhcial inspection. Her absence and lailure to extend necessaiy assistance reflectcd disrcgard of administrativc instructions and amountcd lo insubordination. Such conduct rvas held to be r,Lnbecoming of a Government servant and lalling within "misconduct" under Rule 3 o[ the Telalgana State Civil Sen,iccs (Conduct) Rulcs, 1964. Articles of Charge No. 3 proved.

Thc learned District Judge (PW4) has dcposed in his evidence that the charged oflicer is highly adamzrnt in attitucle and acts as monopoly and there were complainl-s against her from the members of the Bar

Administrative Judges ol Adilabad ssociatior-r, Utnoor, for which District to mcnd vour u,ays from adamant attitudc and monopoly behavior, you c cl not hccd to thc advice of thc strperiors and continued to be in the same fashion, u.hich a juclicial Olficer ought not to have donc, s.hich act of yours if pr-ovcd or cstablished would amount to gra\.c misconduct and unbccoming o[ a judicial officer uirhin tlrc mearrirrg of Rulc 3 ol A.P. Civil Sen,ices (Conduct) Rulcs 1964. he advised I er scveral times to changc he. attitude and that when he rrought the sard conduct arr behaviour of the charged olf r :r to ttre notice of the Hon'ble I ortftrlio Juclges r.iz., Hon ble Sri Justice p.Naveen Rao arrd I >n'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasekh: r l?cddy. Wherr their Lordships \.sitcd Bcltampally and Adilab I [. tl.reir Lordships advised her o mend her ways, but of nc av;dl. pW4 has positively <ltr ied the suggestion that no su( I tdvice was given bv the Hon't,l : Administrativc Judgcs to her The Ilnquiry Officer observed ttrz 1 I)W4, being a unit Head, is retltr ,-r:d to appraise the Hon'ble Jud i s u hen thev visit the District r rri in that context, the Hon'blt: . udges could have adviscd the :harged ofhcer to mend her rr e ,ls, and therefore. relying upor lhe testimony of PW4 and ris report-Ex. p6, concluded r.r,ithout any hesil ation t rrt Disciplinarl Authority hal; ;roved this charge and thc act ,l (.harged ofllccr in exhibiting caLl attitude anc discharging 1r, paying heed r superiors disrespect anc Principal Dis; certainly zu-l misconduct ar a Judicial () meaning of : State Civil Sir Rules, 1961 charge r.r-a s satisfactorily Disciplinary A,r rus and aclamant behaviour while r duties,'rvithout thc advice of the and shou,ing disregarcl to the i<:t .Iudge, would )unt to gross d unbecoming of ficer within the 3 of Telang:rna rvices (Conduct) and helrl the duly and rroved b1. the trority I

iunbecoming of a judicial officer That you Ms. G. Govinda Lakshmi, whilc workrng as Junior Civil Judge, Utnoor, Adilabad drstrict. as against the various circular instructions of the High Court issued from time to tlme to all the Judicierl Offtcers in the State to maintain the timings o[ thc Bench strictly from 1O:30 AM to O2:OO PM and from 02:30 PM to 05:00 PM you uscd to go to the ofhcc of Sub-Treasury for getting your bills passed zrnd then to the Bank to receive cash thereof during Court working hours, thus, in utter disobedience to the High Court s circular instructions actcd in such a manner amounting to dcrcliction of duties, u'hich a judicia-l officer ought not to have done, u'hich act of yours if proved or established rvould amount to gra\/e misconduct, within thc mealing of Rule 3 of A.P. Civit Scr-vices (Conduct) Rulcs t964. That yoll Ms. G. Govinda Lakshmi, u'hilc s'orking as .Junior Civil .Judgc, Utnoor, Adilabad district, had been rn the habit of not signing the monthly PaY bills o[ stalt unless and until your salary amount is credited into your account and therebY the staff membcrs, who r,verc working undcr your control uscd to rcceire their monthly salaries onlY after Sth of every month and thus caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to your ofhce subordinates, and acted in a most PW 1 to PW3, did not whisper arything about the charged officer leaving the Court during Court working hours and visiting the office of Sub- treasury or Bank. The refore. the Disciplinary Authority without any hesitation, held that this charge is not protcd by cogcnt and convincing evidence. lt is only eLn information of PW4, the learned Principal District Judge, Adilabad, s'hich is not substantiated by any evidence of the staff members working under thc charged officer or any of thc advocatcs, thc said charge has framcd aga.inst the charged olficer. On the othcr hand. PW4 admits in his cross-examination that no written complaints r.,"'ere given by the members of the Bar against the charged officer. Thcreforc, it can bc safely concluded without any hesitation that the Hon'ble Disciplinary Authority failed to establish thc Charge No.5 against the charged ofhcer by cogent and convincing evidence and hcld the charge was not proved by thc Disciplinary Authority

PW 1 to PW3, did not whisper anything abont the charged officer not signing the monthly pay bills of staff u till and unless her sa1ary is credited. On the other hand, the photocopy of Trcasury book in A.P.T-C Form No.7O (Revised) (Ex.D37) shou,s that the salar-v bills of the staff members of thc Presiding Officer (charged officer) for the month of October, 2015, has been sent to the treasury on 03.11.2015 itself. This itself supports and stren ens the defence version

ChargeMemo II -ROC No.94al2OL6-Vigilance Cell, dt.2 t.O4.2OLA heinous manner u,hich a juclicial officcr ought not to have donc, which act of yours, if provccl or establishe(l u,oulcl anount to grave misconcluct and unbecomirrg of a ludicial officer unthin thc mcaning ol Rtrle 3 o[ A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 19(r4. That you Ms. G.Govinda Lakshmi, Junior Civil Jr"rdge, [V Addirional Junior cir,il Judge, Warangal, while r,r..orking as Junror Civil judge, Utnoor. Adilabad district. on expin, o[ earncd lcavc a1;plicd for w.e.f 06 O4-'2O1(; to 30-0-04 2016, prelixing anrl sufh-ring of public holidavs on 05 O4-2O16, 01-05-2016 neither reporrcd to dut.y on O2-05 20 l6 nor sen[ application extcnrling the cirrned lear,e ar-td llso did not infor m the officcr \\,lto u,as inchzrrgc of _r,our court during vour lear.e pcriod that you are not .rttendini< the court from 02 05-2016 u'hich act alternatc irr-chargc :)rrangcmcnts and t hcrr:bv exhil;itcd o[ the char3'ri officer that she has bccn s i ning the monthly pay bills o1 -he staff members simultancous 1, zrlong with her bills. Thus. he enquin, officer hclcl that he Disc:iplinary Authority hi: lailed to establish Charge Nrt.6 b1 cogent ar-rd convincing r r rlence. Thus, the charge not 1r tved. irresponsible elttitLlde and While so, in replv to the ofhcial Court, d On a carir tl scrutiny and appreciation ri' the evidence of PWs I to 4 r'r upled with Exa.Pl to Plg, i can be safely concluded, without any hcsitation, t tat the charged oflicer ha ; r,r.rllfully and deliberatcly exhibited irresponsible attitude and conduct by I iling to apply for extension c I leave rvell in advance ,r informing the Principal Drs, ir:t.ludge so as to cr-rablc him r; make incharge arrangcmcntri u'hich would anlount to clt -eliction of duties' u,l.rich is no: r:xpected from a Juclicial Office -and the said act would anto t)t to "grave misconduct rL: <1 unbecoming of a .Judicial ( ) ficcr " within t] e mcaning oi thc Rule 3 of Tclangana i; te Civil Scrvices (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Therefore, I eld that the Disciplinary Au r hority has success[ull,v p'oved the Article of Charge Nr. b.y cogelt and convincing evidence. as discusscd stLl r r. The evidence of PWs 1to of yours resulted into catrsing' hindrar.rcc lo the ludicial u ork b1, not facilrtirring the pr incipal District .Iudgc to makc immcrliatc resorted to dereliction ol drrtics, : 'vvhich is not expccted trorn a i judicial officer, rr.hir:h act of r,ours if ploved ,'r estirblisherl irorrld: amount t,r gra\c rniscorrtlucl. unbccomirrg ol a judiciaJ officcr u,ithin the meaning of Rule 3 of ] A.P Civil Scrvices (Conduct) Rules j memoranclu rn gir.en by the High I coupled with E \s.pl to pl9 and Ex.D4 u,orL. I ated I 1-07-2016 issu erl conclusivel

I

in ROC. No. 948/2016-r'igilance Ccll, calling for your cxplanalion on the avcrments mentioned in the report, dated 02 05-2016 of Principal District Jlldge, Adilabad, you in thc explanation clated 23- 07 2016, without confining to lhe subject mattcr, \'enLure(l to huri certain bald and baseless allegations against Smt. G. Udaya Gorvri, thc then Principal District Judge, Adilabad, Smt. Sunitha Kunchala, the thcn I Additional District Juclge, Adilabad and the Hon'ble Sri.Justice T.Sunil Chowdary, the then Administrative Judgc of Adilabad district, as if thcy at thc instance and influcnce oI His Lordship, created host ile al mosphere in discharging,vour ofhcial dutics and thus, rvitl.r a dishonest intention to cover-up your mistakes and lo gain undescning sympathy, exhibitcd an act of insubordination manner. rvhich is not expected from a judicial officer, u,hich act of yours if proved or established u,ould amount to grave misconduct, unbecoming of a judicial offtcer within thc meaning of Ru lc 3 of A.P Civil Scrvices (Conduct) Rules 1964. Whilc so, you a-rc in the habit of rcgularly Lcaving the hcadquarters rvit hou t prior sanction of lealc or \\'ithout making alternate arrangernents, and on 24-03-20l6 1'ou hate sent a leave application under D:s. No. 28512016, through fax at about 1:08 p.m., to I Adclitional District Judgc, Adilabad for sanctior-r of 3 days casual leave on 24-03- 2016,26-03 2O 16 and 2A-03-2016 with permission to avail public holidays on 25-O3-2016 and 27- O3-2O16 to attend the classes establish the said charge and the chargcd officer admittcd about herself making the said allegations, as can be seen from her explanation-Ex. D4. No further proof is required in this regard. She failed to establish the said aJlegations by adducing cogent and convincing evidence exccpt hcr self-serving testimony as DWl. Thcrcfore, the successfully proved the Article of Charge No.2 also. Consequently, I hnd the charged ofhcer guilty of "misconduct and gravc insubordination and unbecoming of a .ludicial Officer" within the meaning of the Rule 3 r-rf T.S.Civil Serviccs (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Having regard to the evidence of PWs I to 4 coupled u,rth Exs. Pl to P19, it can bc safely concludcd, q'ithout aJIy hesitation, that thc I{on'ble Disciplinary Authority has successfully proved this Article of Charge also that the charged ofhccr lcft thc headquartcrs without prior sanction of leavc and even after rejection of her leave by PW2 causing inconvenience and hardship to the Prl.District Judge, Adilabad , in makin PW1 al ternate

l0 conducted bl ICADR and NALSAR University of Law at Hyderabad and left the station u,ithout prior sanction of leavc applicd for and thereby acted in a most callous manner in not appll,ing leaye u,ell in advance and get the same sanctioned before leavir.rg the headquarlers, as a result of rvhich you causcd inconr,eniencc to the District Judiciary in making a.lternate in-charge arrangements, which is not expected from a judicial officer, u,hich act of vours if proled or esrablished r,r oultl amounI to grave misconduct, unbecoming of a judicial otficer within thc meanrng of Rule 3 of A.P Civil Services (Conduct) Rulcs arrangemerr conduct is Judicial ( )l certainly L misconducr, and unbcr: Officer" u ir I the Rule ll r Rules, I9r;,1 Disciplina;r successfulh of Chzrrge \'r s and the said rot expectcd from a Lcer which would 11ount to "gross insubordination ning of a Judicial ir-r the mear-ring of ' T.S.C.S. (Conduct) and therefore, the Authority has proved thc Article 3 also. Charge Memo III-ROC.No.22 66 l 2Ot6_Vigi\rnceCelt, dt 27.O4.2OLT That you Ms. C;.(i Evidenth L)-re charge sheets initia.ls or ( r dorscmcnts made ovrnda Lakshmi, IV Additional Junior and final rel )rts. as shown in Annexures-l i II do not bear Civil .Iudge, Warangal, rvhile the dircctrons of the princr working as such, in pursuance of pal District Judge, Warangai, under letter Dis.No. 6286, darect 08-08_ 2016, u,hen the Head of thc vigilanct: Cell-cum 1 Additional Disrrict judge, Warangal, visitcci thc court of IV Addition:rl Junior civil Judge, Waranga_I, it camc to be unearthed that as or-r Og_0g_ 2016, yolr kept pencling 35 charge-sheets filed b1' the police concerncd during the period from l3-08-20 l4 to 29-07 -2016 (Annexu r(.- I) pcrtaining to .Juvenilc Courl, Warangal, u.ithout making cndorsemcnt on thosc charge-sheets for procced ing further. rhus. you did nut dischargc your legi and acted in a most callous manner. lod officcr as to r t up." Therefore, I l artion to come to by thc cha "che<:k and I thc have no hr': conclr r ion that the Disciplirran Authority has PWs I to 4 rrt r Exs. pl to p5 successlu lll proved the Articles of )harges I & 2 having rcgarrl to tl-re cvidcnce of timate duties, negligent and resulLing in which act of chaotic srtuation, yours if proved or established would amount of gravc misconduct, unbccoming oI a judicial officer within the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. While so, iL also camc to be unearthed that as on 08 08-20 I 6. you also kept pending 29 llnal rcports (Annexurc- ) filed by conccrned police without rnaking any endorsement as check and put up and did not proceed further in those final reports, thus, you did not discharge -vour most negligent and callous manner, resulting chaotic situation, which is not expcctcd of a judicial ofhcer, rvhich ac:t o[ yours if proved or cstablishcd would amount to grel\'e misconduct, unbecoming oI a Judicial officer u'ithin the meaning of Rule 3 of A.P Civil S9lyt99! Lcoq4lclllulg{o + White so, though, the Prtnt: District Judge, Warangal [ar.ing inspected your court on 06 O8- 2016 and found cert:un dockcts u,ere kept blank u'ithout there being your initial ar-rd madc an l endorsement to thzit e[fect, but still you handled those case hles(Annexure Ill) and rnitialcd on those dockets cvcn aftcr thc observation and endorscmctrt of the Principal District J r-rclge, Warangal, thus, -\'olt dicl not discharge your legitimate duties and acted in a most negligen t and callous manner, resulting ch ao tic situation, which is not cxpcctcd of a Judicial ofhcer, lvhich act of yours if proved or establishcd q,ould amount to Srarve misconduct, unbecoming oI a judicial olficer within the me:rning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Serr ices l l)al

Conduct Rules 1964. While So, it also came to be unearthed that as on 08-08-2016, you also did not sign and make aIIy endorscment on the dockets of 34 calendar cases (Annexlrre- IV) relaring to undcr-trial prisoners, lor proceeding fu rther, thus you <lid not discharge 1.our legitimate duties and acted in a most negligent and callous manner. resulting chaotic situation tvhich is not expectcd of a Judrcial ofhcer, which act of yours if proved or established would amount to gra\re misconduct and unbecoming of a judiciaJ offir.er wirhin rhe meaning of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Senic^es (Conductl Rules 1964. any endorscment on the dockcts of 34 calendar cases (Annexure- IV) relatirlg to under-trial prisoners, lor proceeding further, thus you did not discharge your legitimatc dutics and acted in a most negligcnt and callous manner. resulting chaotic situation, rvhich is not expected of a Judicial ofhcer, u,hich act of yours if proved or establishcd would amount to grave misconduct and unbccoming of a judicial offrcc'r u ithin thc mear]ing of Rulc 3,,f A.P. Civil Scrvices Conductl Rcrles 1964 Whilc so, it r--amc to bc uncarthcd that as on 08-08-2016, you kept pending about 30 charge-sheets that \r,ere f-rled by concerned police (Anncxr-rre-V), on the dais of your courl, u.ithou t making any endorsement on those charge- On .l ::rrelu I scrutiny of the evident c rf PWs 1 to 4 and Exs.Pl to P i ar-rcl coupled with thc admissi,) Ls of the charged ofhccr, it r:an be safell' concluded, without any hesitation, r rat the Hon'ble Disciplin;u-r' Au thoriry has successfull_r' c -oved the Article of Charge No.I r lso b_v cogent and convincing e.,<ienL:e and I have no hesitatio I to come to thc conclusion t rat thc charged officer is gLr ll ol "misconduct and unlr, r rmirrg ,r[ a Governmenr ierr,:u-rt bcing a Judicial Offrr e as <lehned under Rule 3 of il t Tcl:Lngan:L State Civil Scn,icc; (Cor-rduct) Rules, 1964, and tlr ls thc alticlcs of fle1gg is pror ed

While So. rt also camc to be uneaflhccl lhar as on 08-08 20 16. you also did not sign and makc ] Thc docu n r adduced by Authority u I proceedings r revea.l that th ( signature of ) on o2_o8.201t also can be I successfully Disciplina4.'l evidence o[ P,r to P8, c,) r admissions rn r officer herscll statement of (lc ntar.J cr.idence the Disciplinaqz r<:h itrc docket :rrkcd as Er.P7 , d0 not bear the r: charged officer So, this charge :ld to havc been proved bv the uthority by the s I to 4, Iixs.Pl rlecl u,ith the lr: lrv the clrzrrged in her r,,'ritten e't-r <:,' 'lhc evidence I P\! s. I to 4 alld trxs.Pl to P8 rlso conclu sively establishes abc tt finding of the charge sheets rs nrentioned in Annexure-V lr ir i1 on the dais of the chargerl offi t.cr tvjthout making any ndorsemen t on s r rcts directin shects for ceedin further, those char the thus, you did not discharge your legitimate duties and acted in a most ncghgcnt and callous manner, resulting chaotic situation, which is not expected o[ a Judicial ofhcer, u,hich act of yours if prorted or established would amou nt to gra! e misconduct, unbecoming of a judicial officer within thc mcaling of Rule 3 of A. P. Civil Sen'ices (Conduct) Rules 1964. Which so, it carnc to bc uncarthcd that as on 08-08-2016, you did not take any furthcr slcps il't taking cognizance of lhe offence in respect of the charge sheets filed by the concerned police relatirrg lo 12 cases of Juvenile court and 25 cases of IV Additional .ludicial Magistrate of First class, Warangal (Annexurc-VI), though they were scrutinized, thus, )'ou did not discharge lour legitimatr' duties and acted in a most negligent and callous manner, resulting chaotic situation, u'hicl't is not cxpectcd of a .ludicial officer, which act of yours il proved or cstablished u'ould arnount to grave misconduct :urd unbecoming of a judicral officcr within l-he meaning of Rule 3 o[ A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Which so, on the charge-sheet hled by PS Ghanpur (W) Warangal city in Crime No.73l2O I6 (CC.No.3 l3/ 20l6) cognizar tcc order was scribed bY Chief

Ministerial ofhcer of vour court on Chief Ministerial Officer l"o scrutinizc them and place before hcr, Thus, thc Hon'ble Disciplinary Authority has success[ully proved the said chargc bv cogent ald convincing evidence as drscusscd supra and the cl.rarge d officer, therelore, c:rn be held to be guilty of ' miscondn ct ' as she failed to dischargc her legitimate duties and acted in a most negligent und callous ma-nner resulung rn chaotic situation which is not expected by her as a Judicial Ofhcer, thus the Articles of charge is Held proved. Thc evidencc of PWs 3 & 4 coupled with the evidence of PWs. 1 &, 2 u,hich is consistent, cogent, convincing and trlrst"\'orthy and which do not suffer [rom any materia] inflrmities, categorically establishes that the charged officcr, has dclibcrately failed to takc cognizance o[ the charge sheel s :is menlioned in Annerure-VI immediately after their scrlrtiny by the Chief Ministerial Oflrcer as revealed from her ou n explanation made in hcr ',r'ritten statemcnt of dcfencc as well as in her cr.idcncc as DWI, and thus the Enclr-riry Officer stated to have no hcsitation to hold that the Disr:iplinarl Authority has successfully proved this Charge No.6 as rvell, by the said cogent ald convincin cvidencc The Enquiry Officer held that there is no sufhcient evidence to cstablish that thc charged officer has simph' actcd upon the endorsement made by the Chief Ministeri.rl Offrcer. She has l4 27 -06-2016, instead of you, suggcsling you ro take cognizancc for ccrtatrr offcnccs and against certair-r accuscd, thus, you did not discha ge your legitimate duties and acted in a most negligent and callones man ner, resulting chaotic situation, u.hich is not expected of a Judicial oflicer, u,hich act ol yours if provcd or establishcd would amou nt to grave miscondlrct eurd unbecoming of a judicial uflicer u,ilhin rhe mearing of Rulc 3 of A.P. Civil Services Conducr Rules, 1964 Which so, rt came to be unezuthed that as on 08-08-20i6, in 39 calend a r cnses (Annexure-Vll) you did not ,,vrite docket orders, but when comparcd to court diarl, those cases \vcre said to have becn adjourned to other dates with ordcr "accused called absent, call on ' ald thereby maintained incomplete dockets orders, thus _vou did not discharge your legitimatc dutics and acted in a most ncgligcnt and callous manncr. rcsulting chaotic situatioll, tvhich is not expected of a Judici.rl officer, which act of yours if prot,cd or established would amou nt to grave misconducL and unbecoming o[ a judicial officcr rrithin lhe mcaning Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur, Mahabul;nagar District, u.hile u.orking as IV Additional Junior Civil Juclgc, Warangal, during the relevant pcriod, on 06-12-2olg having rcceived and accepted thc case property ie., an amount of Rs. 3,59,19.250/- that u,as seized considered I other mate -l along with tL has taken Hence, th: cannot be ''miscondu,:t charge. Acc r No.7 is r proved b1' Authoritv. e charge sheet and rl documet'rts hled : charge shcct- She :ognizancc rightly. charged officer (:ld guilt], of the a s rrlleged in this dingly, the Charge ot satisfactorily tht Disciplinary

Having regil r PWs I to ,1 coupled u irl made by ti.r,: her expleurir, written starr r well as in trt r held that Authority I proved thLs cogent ernd:,r to the evirlence of rnd Exs.l) I to P8 the adnrissions t:h;rr-ged ofll<:er in lon and in the Lr:nt of defcnce as r:r,irlcr-rce as DW 1, the Disciplina4' as succcssfully charge also, by rlint:ing evrdence. of Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rulcs. 1964. Charge Memo fV-ROC No. 76/2OL9-Vigilance Cell, dt.( t .O4.2OL1 That you Ms. G.Govinda La_l<shmi, Upon L) evidence itrl charged offict I as her rvrit,, dcfence and .r thc enquiry ,t:T to ttre failur: offrcer to act I r necessary Juc i rpreciation of trced b1- the as DW I as rvell n sLatemen t of 'ittcrr argume nts, ccr hcld that due of the charged )mptly in passing 'iaJ ()rders on the in Crimc l.lo.2 53 r\ 2018 ol Kazi et list of ro e setzgq ljl PW2.

J

PS along rvith Form No. 60, 1'ou did not take any steps to get thc said casc property deposited in the form of FDR ald instcad giten the same to the Station HoLlse Officer, Kazipet PS, on l0-12 2018 for safe custody ol the said amount, thus contrary lo I he provision of law. where there is a duty cast upon the presidifrg . off-rccr for safe custody of the casc properties and despite receirtng requisiLion from the Kazipet PS and Officia-l Memoranda dated 1 2- 12-2018 &, 28-12-2ola lrom thc Principal District .Iudge, Warangal, still you did not comply with the directions of the Principal District Judge, Warangal, ir-r getting the case pro pe rtv deposited in the form of FDR and acted in a most disobedicnt manner amounting to derelictio n of duties and failed to discharge your legitimate duties, whrch act of yours if proved or establishcd would arnount to gr:rve misconduct, unbecoming of a judicial officer within lhe m,,rnittg of Rule 3 o[ Telangana Cilil Services (Conduct) Rules. Ex.P3 in connection with the clcctoral offenccs in Cr.No.252/2018, a huge amount oi Rs.3,59,19,250/- was forced to be kcpt rvith PW2 under the risk of m isappropriation of the Sit ITIC. Tl.re r:harged officer not only passed orders granting safe custod)' of thc vaiuablc cash propcrt), to PW2 contrary to thc Criminal Rr"rles of Practice ald circular instructions of the Hon'ble High Court issued from time to timc but also lailed to obey the direc[ions of the Principal District Judge, Warangal, rvho is thc controlling officcr, bcing thc District Unit Head and thtrs. she acled in a most drsobedient manner amounling lo clereliction of dulies, gross irtsubordination and committed grave misconduct and unbccoming of a .iudicial Ofhccr within the meaning of Rule 3 of the Telangarra Slate Ciril Sen ices (Conduct) Rr"rles. 1964. Thus, held the charge proved-

5. Basing on the Enquiry Reports submitted b1, the Enquiry Officer in all four Charge Memos, the 2nd respondent issued show- cause notices uide Proceeditlgs ROC. Nos.l815/20 15, 1n 948/2016, 2266 12016 and 7612019, dt.1B.06.2O2O, to the petitioner / delinquent officer calling for submission of objections/comments, to which the she submitted objections, dt.25.O6.2O20, to all the four show-cause notices, and the 2"d l6 respondent, not sati sfied petitioner/delinquent g,ith the explan,r ions offered bt, tlre officer, issrt:d ROC.Nos. 1B 1Sl20 1S, dt.13.OZ.2O2t, senr Government for ,, and Sri Kos,turi pavan l(umar, learned respondent No.2, proceedin6Js 948/2016, 2266/,.),)16 and Z6/20t<), recommendations to 1te 1., rcspondenl- imposing a major pe,r r Llt1, of Compulsorv Retirement,' agatnst the petitioner from ser\rrc-- u,ith 2/3d pension, and pursuant to u,hich, the 2.d respondent ir,r ued G.O.Ms.No.40 Lan, (LA, LA&J-Home-Courts.A2) Departm: rr, dt.13.o7 .2021. "imposing a rnajor punishment of compulsr,r I retirement frorn service" on rhe petitioner as Junior Civil Jurt; e under Clause g Rule 9 of Telangana Civil Sen ices (Classific: tron, Control and Appeal) Rulcs, 199 1. Assaiting the said. pro<:,rcdings ol the I,t and 2nd respond.ents, the petitioner/d.etinqt ent offt.cer ftled the instant writ petition. 5'l Heard thc learned Senior counsel Srr. 4.Surender Rao representing thc counsel on record, Sri Madira.Jrr Srir_rivas Rao, for the petitioner/ cielinquent officer, Smt Shalir i learned Govt. Pleader Seryices-ll appearing for respondent I o. 1-Governmenl Stanrl ng Counsel for l7 The brief submissions of the petitioner are as follows:

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that, in respect of all the chargc memos, though the petitioncr had submitted detailed explanations categorically shou'ing that the charges framed neither by themselves show the misconduct on the part of the petitioner / delinquent officer nor the supporting the incriminating material produced by the respondents would constitute a misconduct. Further, it is contended that the 2"d respondent without proper appreciation of the material placed by the petitioner to controvert the charges, nonetheless subjected the petitioner to Departmental Enquiry and issucd proceedings, dt.31.08.2017.

7. Further, in the course of the enquiry, under Charge Memo I, PWs. 1 to 5 r.r.ere examined ald Exs.Pl to P25 u'ere marked on behalf of the department, while the petitioner examined herself as DW1 and marked Exs.D1 to D46; under Charge Mcmo II, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and trxs.Pl to P19 u'ere marked, and the petitioner as DW1 and marked Bxs.D1 to D31; under Charge Memo III, PWs. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.Pl to P8 were marked, and the petitioner as DWl marked Exs.D1 to D239; and under Charge Memo IV, PWs.1 an:.d 2 wete examined and Exs.Pl to P10 were marked, '*,hile the petitioner as I) W1 and marked Exs.D1 to D12 B. It is contended by, the learned Senior C I rnsel that upon completion of the enquiry, the petitioner vvas ssued notice to submit her r,r.r-itten submissions and thereaft,)., the petitioner submitted written submissions on 29.06.2019, ex rlaining in detail that none of the charges framed against her sto,,d proved, either on the basis of the oral or on documentarv evirl .nce adduced bv the department. 9 . With regard to Charqe Memo- L uide RAl I No.1815/2015- Vigilance Cell, dt.O6.O6.2OL7, Iearned Senior co rnsel contended that during enquin, PW1 to PW5 were examinr: I and Exs.pl to P25 rvere markecl for the department and r r behalf of the petitioner/ deiinquu-r-rt officer, she herseif exami:-r:d as DWl and got marked Exs.D1 to D46. The Enquiry Offic,: without proper appreciation of material and rvithout consider ng the written submissions/ arguments of the petitioner, errol-t I rusly came to a conclusion that charge Nos.1 to 4 were held pr tved despite no evidence and charge Nos.S & 6 r,rrere held not pro.,,, ,d.

to

10. l.earned Senior Counsel further contended that there was no complaint whatsoever against the petitioner from any of her superior oflicers as alteged b1' the department and that Bx'P3, the repor[, d,t.26.Og.2O15 ol the Chief Judicial Magistrate(PW5), relating to the disposal of 14 calendar cases, u'as based on a misinterpretation of the provisions of the code of criminal Procedure. Sections 242(3\ and 254(1) Cr'PC' clearly mandate that the Magistrate shall take evidence produced by the prosecution, and cannot in no nray compel the prosecution to examine all the witnesses before the Court' More so, the disposal of the said cases \ ras part of the petitioner's judicial functions and cannot made subject matter of disciplinary charges. It u,as further contended that Charge Nos. 1 and 2 purely rclate to judicial decision -making; Charge No.3 does not disclose anv act of insubordination or not obeving the instructions of superior officers; and Charge No. 4 is unsupporled b1' anl documentarl' evidence regarding the allegcd instructions' Hence' no charge couldhavebeenframedagainstthepetitionerunderthesaid RoC,andthesaidchargesarebaselessandframedwithulterior motive.

1 1. Thus, tht: said charge is violative of thr: lhe statutory provisions under Cr.P.C.. and therefore, the sai I findings are perverse and untcllable. Sigr-rifican t I5,, no complaint; *.ere recei'ed from the Bar Association, the complainants, or the rccused in any of the cases. ancl rro appeal or revision was preferr:d against any of the judgments.

12. The learncd Senior Counsel contends with rr,1 ard to Charge 3 that the allegzrrio' .f mara fide intention is wholr . unsupported by evidence. On 25.08.2015, the peritioner was on c fficial protocol duty in connection *'ith the'isit of Hon'ble Justict-' I ri B. chandra Kumar, former .-luclgc of the Hon,ble High Court, e s evidenced by Exs.D6, D7, D3B, D39 and D4O. Further, ther,: rvas no prior u.ritten or o.al intimalion to thc pe titioner regard L. Lg the visit of the Principal Districr Juclge at -l:30 pM on the sr id day. pW.4 himself admitted that thcre *'as neither written o, lnmunication nor documentarl cvidence to shorv that the peti ioner was in charge of the ner'r-r' constructecl court bu ding or l. t 1.s of the said Court buiiding. 'lhc evidcnce ol plV 1 and pW2 zu regards the allegecl intimiition u as contradictir-rg rvith each othe. rnd thus, not proved, and tlte said charge is basecl on conjectures i nd surmises.

2l

13. Further, in relation to Charge 4, it is contended that the said charge is vague and bereft of particulars. No specific instances, dates, or nature of the alieged adamant behaviour of the petitioner were either pleaded or proved u,ith substantiating evidence. No communication, of whatsoever, was ever issued to the petitioner by the Principal District Judge or the Administrative Judges. On the contrary, Ex.D35 shou S that the Administrative Judge instructed for more disposals '"vithout compromising quality, and Ex.DB is a letter of appreciation issued in recognition of her performance. Thc alleged complaints of the Bar were neither produced in the disciplinary enquiry nor marked. Thus, the charge is legally untenable

14. In respect of Charge Memo-II uide RoC No.94al2Ol6- Vigilance Cell, dt.26.O4.20la, learned counsel contended that during enquiry PWl to PW4 u,ere examined and Exs.Pl to P19 were marked for the department and on behalf of the petitioner/ delinquent ofhcer, she herself examined as DW1 and got marked trxs.D 1 to D3 1. The Enquiry Ofhcer rvithout considering the material on record and without considering the written submissions/arguments of the petitioner, erroneously came to a conclusion that charge Nos.1 to 3 were held proved.

15. Learned counsel further contended that _. rc allegations in the Charge Memo pertain on1-v to leave applicatrc ns submitted by the petitioner ernd the explanation(Ex. D4) furnist.r rl in response to Ex.D3, the Olficial Memorandum dt. 1 1.07.12 I 16, are wholly unconnccted u,ith Judicial functions. Initiall., the principal District Judge (PW1) sought clarification regar Jing the 1eave, which rrvas subsequentl_v sanctioned by this Hor,rle Court under Exs.DS and D6. Further, the suo motu report <1 )B.l2.2OlT (Ex. P19) cannot bc treated as a complaint, and thourg h the petitioner cannot impute motives behind the submission r,l such a l-eport, but has got a reasonable apprehension about thr, validity of such a report. Thercfore, the charges lramed under thi , ROC are false and unsLrstain:rble.

16. in so far as Cl'rarge 1, it is contencled that th r cntire premise of the charge stands destroyed by the proceedings of the Hon,ble High court ROC No.2515/2016-B.Spl., dt.23.11.2017(Ex.D5), whereby the Hor-r'ble High Court sanctioned exter.l: ion of leave by granting Half Pay Leave lor 20 days from )i.05.2016 to

20. O5.2016, in continuation of Earned Leave fronr 06.04.20 16 to

30. O4.2016, r,r,ith permission to prefix pubtir: rolidays. and expressly ratified the in-charge arrangements rr u,ell as the

a1 resumption of duty by the petitioncr on 21 .O5.2O I 6. Further proceedings dt. 19.09.2017 (Ex.D30) only required submission of a lormal leave application, therebv acknorvledging the absence leave rvas regularised. The allegation of hindrance to judicial work is disproved by the categorical admissions of PW.l, PW.2 and PW.4, rvho admitted that alternate in charge arrangements lvere made and that there u,as no disturbance to judicial functioning as to the petitioner's absence. The finding under Charge No.1 is therefore contrary to evidence and perverse

17. It is contendcd that the explanation dt.23.07.2O16 was submitted strictly in response to the Olficial Memorandum issued by the Hon'ble High Court pur suant to a suo-motu report dt.02.05.2016. The petitioner was compelled to explain the factual background under which she sought extension of leave and the circumstances that led her to approach the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, which ultimately resulted in her transfer to Warangal District. The explanalion was bona fide and necessary for self defence and cannot be construed as an act of insubordination. Significantly, the Hon'ble High Court thereafter sanctioned the entire period of leave by proceedings Ex.D5, thereby accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner. PW4, who is the District not refer to the High Court proceedings u,L r e subsequent rcporr dt.OB.12.2OI7(Ex.pI9). l1 e Charge No.2 lacks valid evidence and is therelo e Judge at Warangal, admitted in cross-exami: r Ltio'r that she did unsupported b1, the record.

18. Insofar as Charge 3, it is contended by t re learned Senior Counsel that the allegation of unauthor i ;ed absence is unsustainable in vieu, of the proceedings of he Hon,ble High Court ROC No.7421 /2017-B.Spl., dt.Ol.02:l )18 (Ex.D6), as already stated the Honble High Court sanctionr d Half pay Leave for the period from 24.O3.2O16 to 28 t) j.2O16, thereby regularising the alleged absence and further r t e petitioner had applied for Casual Leave in advance to atterri contact classes conducted by ICADR pursuant to intimation rege rding the course schedule. PW.2 categorically admitted that thcre was no documentary evidence to establish unauthor i ;ed absence of petitioner or 1ea'ing the headquarters rvithout ;:rmission. Once the competent authority has sanctioned tht: lear.e, the very foundation of Charge 3 appears to be invalid anrt the said finding is legally untenable. submitting her linding under

19. As regards Charqe Memo-III. ulde ROC.No.2266l2016' VigilanceCell , dt.27.o4.2(J17 , Iearned counsel contended that during enquiry PW1 to PW4 r,r'ere examined and trxs.Pl to PB were ma-rked for the d epartrncnt and on behalf ol the peti tioner/ delirtquent officer, she hcrself examined as DW1 and got malked Exs.Dl to D239. The Enquiry Officer without considering the rrvritten submissions/ arguments of the petitioner, came to a conclnsion that cirargc Nos. 1 to 6 & 8 were held proved and charge Nos.7 was held not proved. Thus, contentions are made in respect to charge Nos. 1 to 6 & 8 alonc.

20. lrarned Senior Counscl further contended that there was no complaint either from members of the Bar Association or from superior officers against the petitioner, ald the assertion made by the Principal District Judge/P\,V4, in this regard, is not based on any material. The petitioner joined as IV Additional Junior Civil Judge (Juvenile Court), Warangal, on 23.05.2016; however, the Court rvas on vacation until O6.06.2016. Thereafter, advocates abstained from court q,ork from 06.06.2016 to 29.07.2016, and that 30.07.2016 and 31 .07.2016 u'ere holidays lt was further contended that Charges I to 6 and 8 "r'holly pertain to judicial functions and, therefore, no disciplinarjr chargr: c:ould have been framed and the said charge is misconceived. 2t. petrtioner assumed charge of the IV Aclditional Jr rrior Ci,zil ,Judge, Warangal, on 23.05.20 16, cluring r.r,hich periocl besides summer vacation, arr advocate agitation u,ent on irorr Otj.06.2016 to

29. O7.2016.

22. Regardirrg Charge 1 , learned cour-:sel for petitioner submitted that PW3's inspection on lO.OB.2O1rl ras nor properl_v reflected the correct status of the 35 pendini; Charge Sheets, marl<ed as Exs.D31 to D69, u,hic]r clearly sho,r that all charge shccts rvere duly endorsed, and as regardr; (t rarge 2, it was colltended that the 29 Final Reports were Lrnde r th<: scrutiny of PW.2 (CMO), and all u.ere eventually processeci z nd endorsed as evident from Exs.D70 to D9s. [t rvas fr,rrther contended that findings ri,ere solelv based on the nrere de;t rsitions of the nitnesses and u,ere not supporleci by any docunL, ntary evidence, u,hich :enders the Enquirl, Cfficer,s finrlings r peculative and unsirpported by any material to prove the charges. Counsel for the petitioner further cor r:nded that the

23. With respect to Charge 3, it is contended by the petltroner that the handling of case dockets as observed by the Principal District Judge was due to high pend'encv of over 2300 cases and a newly posted Bench Clerk and therefore' the petitioner had directed the Personal Assistant-cum-Typist to type and return dockets for signature, which rvere administrative measures to maintain Court procedure and sanctity'

24. In respect of Charge Nos'4 and 6' it is contended that the delay in endorsing Calendar Cases of Under Trial Prisoners and also not taking cognizance of 37 scrutinized cases were due to urgent Court duties, staff transfers, and high case load' which were however completed' as shorvn tn Exs'D1l3 to D146 ald D178 to D2I4. Similarly, as regards Charge 5' it is contended by the petitioner that the 3O Charge Sheets found on the court dais were endorsed promptly on 09 08 2016 as evident from the exhibits/documents on behalf of the petitioner/delinquent officer' following temporary disruptions caused by a condolence meeting and stalf adjustments'

25. As regards Charge No'8, counsel for Petitioner contended that the incomplete docket orders in 39 Calendar Cases were Further transfer of cases to other courts vas for efficient noted by entering penciled instructions, urhicl, tere later typed. management, and that the delay occurred was dr e to high volume of cases and posting of temporar], staff. Hou e u,er, the trnquiry Officer held the Charge 7 as 'dropped/not pr rved'. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel contended that all actions bv the petitioner u,ere consistent with procedural reqtLt:ements, and no negligence or misconduct is attributable to the p: .itioner

26. With respect to Chq e Mem.o- uide t?'-C No. 76/2019- Vigilance Cel1, dt.08.04.20 i9, Iearned c I rnsel lor the petitioner/ delinquent officer contended that tht: s aid charge solely reiates to discharge ofjudicial functions by the pe titioner ald does not involve any allegation of miscondt ct, extraneous consideration, or corruption. Consequently, no o Large could have been framed under this ROC and the said c I irge by itself is m isconceirred . 27 Thc learned Senior Counsel submitted tlr Lt the petitioner being the Presiding Officer of IV Additior.ral .hr rior Civil Judge (Juvenile Court), Warangal, has no jurisdictiotr to try election- related oflences as the Hon'ble High Court c I Judicature at

Hyderabad, in ROC No.1848/tr1l20ia dt.25.O2.2015, had designated the Special Mobile Court lor trial of PCR Act and election-related offences at Warangal, s'hile another order, ROC No.1O5/E1l2018, dt.01.05.20 18, estabiished a Special District and Sessions Court at Hyderabad for criminal cases involving elected MPs and MLAs. Further, the State Election Commission had issued a Standard Operating Procedure (Order No.119SEC- Fll2ol4l prescribing that seized election related cash should be deposited in treasury or as directed b5r the court, and specific gnevance redressal mechanisms were functioning. Thus, the petitioner's role was limited to return the said amount to safe custody by police authoritl,, tl1l proper instructions r'r'ere issued by the superior authority or the learned District Judge.

28. It was further contended that the petitioner was on leave from 07. 12.2Ol8 to 09.12.2018, and has been granted permission to leave headquarters after office hours on 06.12.2078, and the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Waranga-I, \'as kept in-charge during her absence and on the evening of 06.12.2018, Lhe Inspector of Police/PW2, produced the accused along with the FIR and remand case diary, and Form-60 and the in charge judge remanded the accused to judicial custody ar-rd aflixed his seal and signaturc on all documents, but did not take st rps to deposit the case property. Upon returning from Ieave .;r lO.12.201g, she camc to kno*' of Form 60 containing the partr< t lars of the seized cash and issued a Safe Custody endorsement cr the form, due to the lack of jurisdictron to entertain election rel, L[ed offences. on 11.12.20 I8, the SHO sought appropriate orderr; from the learned Principal Districr Judge, Warangal (pW. 1), regar 1 ng deposit of the cash in tlre form of FDR, pursuant to which, o., 12.l2.2Olg, the Principal District .Judge issued ofrrciar instruct r.s directing the petitioner to reccive the cash and keep it in the I: -m of FDR in the bank

29. Hou,cver, the SHO, pS Kazipet(pW.2), dep osited the cash directl-1. i.to l-ris SHO bank account on 14.)2.2Olg *,ithout informing cithcr the petitioner or the principal Lr; strict Judge. He also submittcd requisitton letters misrepresentir g the status of the cash, and the principal District Judge issuc< a Sho,,.r. Cause Notice dt.03. 01.2Olg to the petitioner. In respon., ), the petitioner issued Official Mcmorandum Dis.No.17, dt.Og.0, 2olg, directing the concerned S.H.O., to produce the case propert.for conversion into FDR. On thc very same day i.e., on 08.01 1 Olg, the Chief Manager of'sBI, I(azipet, issued an FDR in the rL,:rne of IV Addl.

3l JFCM, Warangal, which '"vas produced before the petitioner(Court) on O9.0I.20 19. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted compliance report to the Principat District Judge on 11.01.20 19, rvithin the pcriod of time granted undcr the Shou' Cause Notice and admittedly, the said amount is in safe custody.

30. Further, PW2, during cross-examination, admitted that the cash remained in his custody from 06.12.2O1-B to 10.1'2.2018' that he deposited the cash in his account without informing the petitioner or the Principal District Judge, and that the bank was advised issuance of an FDR in the Court's name. PW2 also admitted that he did not object the petitioner's endorsement on Form-60 directing for sa-fe custody. PW.1 deposed conlirming that the petitioner was otl sanctioned leave, and the VI Addl. JFCM was in-charge, and that the seized amount in connection with election offences under the Representation of Peoples Act, fell q,ithin the jurisdiction of Special Courts. PW. 1 further deposed as to the receipt of the compliance report from the petitioner on 11.0 1.2019. Thus, it is contended that all the charges are vague and not proved and the charge memo is liab1e to set aside.

3'2 3 1 . In that vie$, of the matter, learned senior C r r,tnsel therefore submi*.tecl that none o[ the charges in any of th: charge memos were proved bevond the prepondcrance of prob'lilities or even remotely. Despite this, the respondents, t ithout proper appreciatiotr ol the factuai aspects, without examining the material on record, and rvithout discussing the :vidence of the departmental u'itnesses or any corroborative evidt nce, and acting under the influetlce of vested interests, issued tL r charge memos soielv on the basis of unfounded zrccusations anrl the allegecl acts cannot be termed as misconduct to initiate depar mental enquiry anci the imposition of a major purrishn'rent of compulsory retirernent, holding that the charges are proved t y the respective enqrtiit'officers.

32. Thc learned Senior Counsel thus :ontends that G.O.Ms.No 40, Las. (LA, LA & J-Home-Courr's I 2) Department' datecl 13.O7 .2021 . issucd b1' the Governmr: t - of Telangana irrrposing the rnajor punishrnent of compulsorl retirement from sen,ice as Jutttior Civil Judge rtnder Clause (tl) rf Rule 9 of the Telangana Crvil Serviccs (Clas.sification, Contr:l and Appeal) Rules, 199 1 , ancl the consequential prc-,ceedin 1 ; issued by the High Court fc.,r Lhe State of 'Ieiangana in R.OCI Iios. 1815/2O15i, .)J 948/2016,2266 l2016 and 76l2Ol9-Yigilance CeIl, dated 13.07.2021, are illegal, arbitrary, and liabie to be set aside. Contentions of the learned Government Pleader reDresentinp the lst respondent / State:

33. The learned Government Pleader for Services-ll, I\4s. Shalini appearing for Government-respondent No.1 would also contend in the same lines as that of the learned Standing Counsel for High Court and the counter affidavit is also filed in the same lines. The sum and substancc of the contentions is that basing upon the proper appreciation of factual matrix in the present case, the enquir,v officers u,ho have dealt with the charges have appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution rvitnesses and also the documents filed before the enquiry officers and along u'ith the evidence of the petitioner/ delinquent officer and the exhibits filcd by her, have unequivocally held that the charges are proved and after follon'ing due process of law. It is contended that the 1"'at-rd 2^d respondents have imposed the major punishment of compulsory re tirement basing on the enquiry reports and the scope for interference by this Court in the writ petition is very limited as the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officers are just and proper. The learned Government Pleader th, s contended that the rvrit pctition rs devoid of mcrits and is liable tr be dismissed Contentions of the learned Standing Courrr ,el for the 2"4 respondent /Hish Court:

34. l,earned Standing Counsel, Mr.Kowturi Parvan I(umar, appearing lor the High Coult-respondent u r r-rld vehementi,v contend that appreciation of evidence cannot t,r done in a writ petition and this Court cannot re-appreciat: the evidence advanced in the departmental enquiry and thr: Court has only jurisdiction to veritv the perversity of the hndinl;; by. the enquiry officer and onlv to the extent as to whether the prescribeci procedure is follo'"r'ed or not. F urther, it is cont: rded that in the departmental proceedings, the uritnesses exami I :d irt respect of all four Charge Memos have categoricallv deposerl zLncl estzLblished the guilt on the part o[ the petirioner/delinque rt officer. The exhibits markc'd categoricalh provcd the content ( ns irr respect of the charges framed against the petitioner/ delir-r; _rent ofhcer and that the enquir,r, officers appointecl by the High I ourt have given fair opportunit_r, ro the petitioner/ delinquent ofli :t:r to prove her case, but though, the petitioner/ delinquent c I lcer, examined herseif as DW 1 ar-rd filed voluminous exhibits in r r spect of all four Charge Memos, has not controverted the evidence placed by the department.

35. It is furlher contended by the learned Standing Counsel that on proper scrutiny o[ the evidence of both sides, the enquiry officers have categorically held the charges AS proved beyond reasonable doubt, and basing upon the findings of the Bnquiry Officer, the petitioner/ delinquent officer was issued show cause notice to submit her explanation ald the explalation offered by the petitioner/ delinqucnt officer was not satisfactory, as such, the 2"d respondent has recommended to impose major punishment and basing on thc recommendation of the High Court, major punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner/delinquent officer uide G.O. Ms. No. 40, Law (LA, LA & J-Home-Courts.A2) Department, dated 13.07.2021, by the l"t respond ent.

36. F urther, the learned Standing Counsel for High Court contended that the writ petitioner has not made out any substantial grounds for interference of this Court and the.grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner/ delinquent officer was proved beyond reasonable doubt, and in such vielv of the matter, the said punishment rvas imposed and interfere: :e of this Court with the said punishment is unu,arranted and tlL, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

37. In support of the above submissions, the r Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgmenr State oJ Tamil Nadu, Registrar Genera|., Registrar(Vigilance) High Courtt.

38. We have given earnest consideration to the the respective counsel appearing on either side r rraterial on record. OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT: zrned Standing ol R,Anburaj a. High Cour-t; submissions of .nd perused the

39. Before adverting to the lactual matrix of th : case ald also whether the findings of the enquiry officr I are properly appreciated or not, and also u,hether this Court ur cler 226 can re- appreciate the evidence adduced belore the en,l tiry officers for proper administration of ju stice and to arri,, : at a proper conclusion, having extracted thc charges and flrr lings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer hereinabove, u,e thought r fit to give the gist of the evidence adduced in relation thereto. I 2O19 Lan,Srrit (Macl) 2191=2020(2) M:rdLI 215

EVIDENCE ADDUCED:

40. The oral evidence adduced and the exhibits marked on behalf of the de partmcnt and the petitioner/ delinquent officer' are since runt-ring in voluminous documents, a gist of the same ts mentioned hereunder: Charge Memo I Charge Memo [l Charge Memo lll trxs.PW1 to P25 Exs.D1 to D46 Bxs.PWl to P19 Exs.D1 to D3 1 trxs.PWl to P8 trxs.D1 to D239 Exs.PWl to P10 trxs.D1 to D12 PWs.l to 5 DW1 PWs. 1 to 4 DW1 Pws.1 to 4 DWI PWs.1 & 2 DWI Charge Memo IV

41. Now that the enquiry officers recorded findings holding the charges proved, as noted hereinabove' agarnst the petitioner / delinquent olficer and in vieli' of the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel that the evidence on record does not establish the misconcluct of the petitioner, the main points which are falling for our consideration are that:

whether this Court can re-appreciate the evidence Article 226 findings of adduced in the departmental enquiry under of the Constitution of India and r'vhether the the enquiry officer are properly arrived; and cl Whether Lhe major punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner/ delinquent officer ulde G.O.Ms.No.40, Lar,v (LA, LA&.- Home-Courts.A2) Department, dt.13.O7 .2021 and the p oceedings issued b1, the Hon'ble High Court in ROl.Nos.l8l5/2015, 94812016, 2266/2016 and 7612O1?-Vigilance Celt, d1.13.O7 .2021, are sustainable in la\\.

42. Non' that rve have extracted rhe charges in cspect ol all four charge memos and elucidated the evidence ac r uced in relation thereto, the discussion is made according to the )harge Memos in relation to Point No. f to see urhether the ct,;.rges are proved beyond reasonable doubt and answer the said pr,r -r t.

ANALYSIS:

ChareeMemol-R OC No . 18 15/20 1s-Visilance Cel dt.06.o6.20t7

43. From a perusal of the material placed on t-(,( ord, the findings recorded by the Enquirv Officer in respect of Cr arge Nos. 1 to 4 are vitiated by misapplication of statuton, prcr isions, improper and selective appreciation of evidence, and nori c:onsideration of material defence documents placed on record.

44. Charge Nos. 1 and 2: The Enquiry Officer I zrs proceeded on an erroneous unclerstanding of Sections 24: (31 and 254(ll Cr.P.C., wrongly imputing a dutt, upon the Ma11: strate to compel the prosecution to examine rvitnesses, which i ; contrarv to the settled legal position. The enquiry officer faileC t ; appreciate the settled principle o[ criminal jurisprudence th € 1 the burden to establish the guilt of the accused lies entirely upon the prosecution. The Enquiry Officer, horvever, has proceeded on the premise that it was incumbcnt upon the Magistrate to compel the prosecution to examine all listed u,itnesses irrespective of the prosecution's own stand. Such an interpretation effectively shifts the prosecutorial burden onto the Court and undermines the foundational principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer ignored the admitted facts that the prosecution itself gave up the uritnesses, that no prejudice was complained of by any stakeholder, and that no appeal or revision was preferred against the judgments.

45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sh. Scttish Mehra us Delhi Administration & Anr2 hcld as under "But when the Judge is fairlv certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conliction the valuable time of the Court should not be \rrastcd for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally complcting the proccdurc to pronounce thc conclusion on a futurc datc. Wc arc undcr hcarar pressure of work-load. If the Sessions Judge is almost ccrtain that the trial u.ould only be al exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or ship the procecdings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself'. 2 t996 (9) SCC 766

46. The approach adopted by the petitioner/ delir r, uent ofhcer is in consistence nith the principle laid down by the Horr L k: Supreme Court in Sh. Sattsh Mehra's case and the reasoning ot' L r,: Enquirl Ofhcer in hoiding the said charges proved, is contrary to thi settled principles of criminal larv and binding precedent. Thus, tl- t said article of charges, in our considered opinion, are not provr_

47. Charqe No.3: The finding of mala fide intc -,ron is based on conjectures, overlooking documentary evidence t stablishing that the petitioner was on official protocol duty irri I hzrd no prior intimation of the visit of the principal Disrr <:r .Judge. The testimony of departmental r.l itnesses and the I )sence of proof regarding possession ol keys or control over the 1, r :mises u,ere not properly appreciated, rendering the finding unsrrs _:rinable. Thus, in our considered opinion, the said charge is not p ovccl.

48. Charqe 4: The same is vague, unsupportc : b,r. particulars, and rests solel] on unsubstantiatcd oral allegatio rs_ .lhe Enquiry Officer failed to consider contemporaneous r fiicral records, including letters of appreciation and instructior r issued by the Hon'ble Administrative Judges, which compler .ly negate the allegatron of improper conduct. The relianct) ln vague and

unproved allegations, r'vithout anY documentary corroboration' amounts to a finding based on no evidence and is erronous Thus' in our considered opinion, the said charge is not provcd

49. Thus, on all Articles of Charges in Charge Memo I' uide ROC No.1815/20l5-Vigilance Cell, dt06'06'2017' the findings of the enquiry officer suffer from procedural unfairness and legal perversity, and the conclusions dranvn are such that no reasonable or prudent person: properl-v instructed in law' could have arrived at' The impugned findings therefore cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside in toto' 12016-Vieilance Cell, dt.26.o4.2018 ChargeMe mo II -ROC No.948

50. CharEe No. 1: The allegation of the petitioner disturbed judicial work is unfounded PW 1, PW 2' ancl PW-4 consistently testified that proper in-charge arrangements were made and that judicial functioning continued smootl-rly during the petitioner's absence. The Enquiry Officer ignored this unchallenged evidence and instead relied on conjecture' rcaching a conclusion no reasonable person could accept Thus this Charge is not proved'

51. Regarding Charge No 2, the expianation dt'23'07'20 16 was submitted in good faith pursuant to the directions of the Honble High Court the leave was sanctioned' as a response to a suo-motu :1":,." :;;""": be ireated as insu, or Roc N o 2s t 5 / 20 f. il;T;# ;'T":;": ",'))',u"ilJ, matter bv transferrin -'-v'z'v ' t' and resolved the charge thererore ,. -,:,-t::.^':"t]"""' 1'r e finding under this rhus, the said charse J""|]l;-;o '' rvhollv unsustainabre. q.'t Once the Hon,ble

High Court, petitioner,s and No.251sl2016_8. Spl., dt.23.10.2017, B.Spt., dt.O1.O2.2O18, the ba sanctioned and ratified the exrsted. Findings in disciplin the leave b_v the administrative side, eave through ROC }OC No.742t/2017_ tmpermissible ancl sis for Charge Nt s I and 3 no louger ary findings desp i e lawful approval of competent authority, on tlr 1S renders the findings perverse.

53. Thus, the findir :,,ffi, :t ;" jil:':"J" ;"',, "'::"'jn respec'i Enquiry officer ar,.'o'o'"" rights' are illt r tr of e'iclence and crocumentary evidenc to consider -.*r:;' ;:"::[r; ;:::::,:: ;" ;;* :ff :,.:;;:,,, r adminis,ra,ive rr officers, thus on ,n"' *t t erns service and wlr Ie, we are of the considered vieu, that the Articles of charges framed under Charge Memo II are not proved. Charge Memo III-ROC.No.2266 | 20 16-Vigilance Cell, dt.27.O4.2OL7 :

54. We have carefully perused the charges framed against the petitioner, the trnquiry Officer's report, the evidencc led on behalf of tl.re Department, and the documents and a,ffidavits filed by the petltloner

55. Charge Nos. 1 & 2: As the petitioner has produced documents (starting from Ex.D31), to demonstrate proper Check & Put-up endorsements for all the records during the relevant period and the evidence of the departmental u,itnesses is either indirect, contradictory, or does not pertain to the specific dates a1leged, we find that the allegation of pendency of 35 Charge Sheets and 29 Final Reports without proper endorsemcnt as check and put up, in charges No.1 & 2 are not substantiated bv credible evidence accordingiy, we hoid that the said charges are not proved

56. Charge Nos.3 & 4 Improper handling of case filcs, dockets, and under-trial prisoner cases is concerned, as seen from the material produced by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner acted in accordance with Court procedure, taking directions from the Principal District Judge and ensuring conti' Any signatures or initialing u,ere procedural z deliberate negligence, which can be held to be nr part of the petitioner/ delinquent officer. Further, attributable to court vacations, advocate I declarations, and inexperience of a neu,1y posterl our considered opinion, these charges are alsc cogent evidence. ruity of records. nd there is no sconduct on the rvork delays are gitation, dying Bench Clerk. In not proved bv

CharseNos.S&6: The ailegecl penderL, 1, of 30 Charge Sheets ancl non,cognizanc.e of scr:utinized cases i , conccrned, the material on record establishes that the ailegecl Cl- arge Sheets and files were rrot before the petitioner or1 the revenant date. Subsequent aclion on O9-O8-2015, as eviderced under the doclrrnents marked on behalf of the petitioner, c. tegoricall-,r shou, that all records u,'ere properly endorsed and tak,: r cognizance of. Thus, in our considered opinion, the saLr chargcs are unsustainable and accordingly, the same are helc -rot proved.

58. Charse No.8 : As regards the incomplete r ocl<et orders in 39 calendar cases, the documents marked in r:spect of cases shoq.n in Annexure-Vll categorically sho-,v thal the petitioner,s conduct was in accordance with procedural requirements, considering absence of accused, advocates' boycott, and the heavy pendency of 2300 cases, including juvenile cases and SRs. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioner acted in-cliligently, which amounts to misconduct, thus the said charge is also not proved

59. Further, Charge No.7 u,as held to be dropped/not proved by the Enquiry Officers. In view of the above, this court finds that the report of the Enquiry Officer insofar as the charges held to be proved suffers from perversity and mis appreciation of evidence The petitioner's documentary and oral evidence specific ts case and the enquiry officers got carried ar'r,ay in arriving at the findings, without proper basis and mechanicall'1 held that the Articles of Charges 1 to 6 and 8 charges are proved. Charse Memo IV-ROC No. 76 l20L9-Yieilance Cell. dt.O8.O4.2O19

60. Finally, coming to the sole Article of Charge framed under Charge Memo IV, the Enquiry Officer relying on the er,idence of PWl and PW2 and departmental documents held that the petitioner allegedly failed to deposit the case property of Rs.3,59,19,250/- seized in Crime No.253l20 18 into FDR

immediately, and thereby acted in a dis tbedient malner. amounting to dereliction of duty.

61. Hor.r,ever, as seen from the material on rr: :ord, the petitioner had been on sanctioned leave from 07. 12.20 18 to O9.I2.2O|B, with permission to leave headquarters on 06. l2 .2}lg. During this period, the VI Additional Junior Civil Judge u,ir; placed in_charge, as admitted by PW-1 (principal District Jud11 :, Warangal). On returning from leave on lO.l2.2}lg, the p:titioner promptly endorsed a Safe Custody Order for the cash, hc wever, due to lack of jurisdiction over election-related offences, as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and the State Electiorr Commission, and complied with the directives of the Hon'ble prin: pa1 District Judge by issuing a memorandum on 08.01.2019 1: the SHO, p.S. Kazipet, for production of the case property, ,",. rich subsequently led to the issuance of an FDR in the court's nar re on 0g.01.2019, which was received by the petitioner on 09.01 .I Ol9 and reported compliance to the Principal District Judge orL 11.01.2O19, well within the period of the Shou' cause Notrc:, demonstrating prompt and lau,ful action.

62. Further, the Enquiry Officer ignored the substantial evidence placed by the petitioner, including leave orders, Safe Custody endorsement, and compliance report and this might be a lapse on part of the petitioner but does not amount to a mis conduct Thus, in our considered opinion, the Article of Charge framed under the Clnrqe Memo IV is also not proved and the findings of the enquiry officer a-re misconceived and in our considered opinion, this charge is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt FINDINGS OF THE COURT

63. Thus, in the light of the above, we find no evidence placed b-v- the respondent/ department to establish that the petitioner/ delinquent ofhcer committed any misconduct as alleged in any of the charge in all the Charge Memos I to IV issued. The material on record does not disclose that the charges u'ere cxamined in thc light of the defence evidence adduced by the petitioner. On the contrary, the documentary and oral evidence produced b1' the petitioner uide Exs.D I to D46 in relation to Charge Merno I, Exs.Di to D31 in relation to Charge memo II, Exs.D1 to D239 in relation to Charge Memo III and Exs.D 1 to D 12 in relation to Charge Memo IV, clearly establish- that the Articles of Charges rn a-11 four Charge Memos(u'hich u'ere held to be proved b5z the

Enquiry Officer) r/ere not proved. Though 1lL, Er.rquiry Officers recorded findings holding the charges as p r rverl, the enquiry officer findings arc not supported by any doc; rtentary evidence. in respect of all lour chargc memos, more so the petitioner has exhibited voluminous documentary evidencc to controvert the charges.

64. Thus, in our considered view, the findin_c ; recorded by the Enquiry Officers are perverse, unsupported by t, idence, and sheer non-application of mind.

65. Norv that *.e have already, held that the.: r.,s no e'idence to prove the misconcluct on the part of the pet tioner/delinquent officer and the fincling arrived by the enquiry ofl cers are perverse, we now deal as to u,hether this Court cal) -e_appreciate the evidence adduced in the departmental enquir.v r-rnder 226 of the Constitution ol India, nlore so, u,hen the en(f I1ry officers have categorically held the cherrges to be proved.

66. In the iight of thc above lactual issues, \\re i re constrained to refer the rulings of the Honble Supreme Cotr t in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authofir:g) & Others a,

Ajag Kumar Sriaastaua3, w-herein the Hon'b'le Supreme Court held as under: "When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine:

i) Whether enquiry \rras held by competent authority

ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with

iii) Whether the finding or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has porrver and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclu sion. "

67. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case held that in exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution, Courts can not interfere u'ith the findings of fact arrived at in a disciplinary proceeding, except in a case of maiafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a linding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and u,rth objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at b,v the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.

68. Further in the case of Kuld.eep Singh u. The Commissioner Of Police & Ors{ , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered 3 l2o2tl 2 SCC 612

.50 a case of similar nature with the present ,l judgment in the case of Nand Kishore prasad. and Orss \t'as considered, rvherein it u,a_. disciplinary proceedings . before a domestic TribL judicial character and, therefore, it is necessar\ should arrive at its conclusions on the basis :_ that is to szl_y, strch evidence u,hich, and thz I degree of definiteness, points to the guilt of tlL, does not leave the matter in a suspicious state ,l cannot take the place of proof cven .in dome s thelefore. there is no evidence to sustirin thc against the delinquent, the emplo1,6.s cannot be as in that evenr, the findings recorded by th,_, would be perverse. Lse, wherein the t State Of Bihar hcld that the nal are of quasi- .l.rat the Tribunal ' some evidence, too, rvith some delinquent ald i mere suspicion :rc enquiries. If, chilrges lramed relcl to be guilty Enquirl' Officer

69. Further, in the recent judgrnent oi the I on,ble Supreme Court in the <:ase of Nirbhag Singh Suliga a. :;:dte of Mad.hga Prad.esh & Anothe*, wherein the r-rnfortunate J,l ght of a judicial officer/ apoellan t thcrcin w,ho put in 27 years of unblemished service, lvas re tnoved from servicc, and the scl_ and exclusive 4 i999 (2) SCC t0 s I 978(3) SCC .la)() 6 Civil A1;pr:ai No..1() of 2026, dt.O5.O I .2026

basis on which the appellant therein has been removed are four judicial orders, by which he enlarged certain parties on bail and those four orders were contrasted g'ith 14 other orders of bail and after hnding that in thc four orders, section 509 A of Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915, was not referred to, action has been taken. It is also the charge that according to the High Court, in 14 other orders the appellant referred to the said section implying thereby he was conscious of existence of the said section on the statute. Section 59-A prescribes rvhat has now famously come to bc known as "twin conditions" for grant of bail and subjecting the judicial officer to discipiinary pr oceeding for the said charge, the judicial officer rvas removed from service. The Honble Supreme Court has categoricall,v heid that in the case of this nature, AS there was no charge of illegal gratification or malafide on the part of the judicial officer, has set aside the punishment and also seriously vien,ed that the High Court ought to have interdicted with tne punishment imposed(the said copy of the judgment was circulated to all the .Judges of the High Court through Registrar General uide ROC.No.76/SOl2026, dt.19.O1.20261, r.rrhich mandated this Court to foliow, the dicta laid down br. the Hon'ble J2 Supreme Courrt to interfere into such cases, so ,i; to not drive the litigants to the Hon'ble Apex Courr. 70 . Further, lhe Hor-r'ble Supreme Court clt.r ling u,ith manv similarly arisen issues as in the case of M.S. Btt.d.ra o. tlnion of IndiaT held that * hilc e'aluating the materiz ts the authority should not altogethe r ignore the reputation in .,,hich the officer was held till recentlv. The maxim ,,Nentt Fintt Repente Turpissimus" (no o,e becomes dishonest all ol r sudden) is not unexceptional but still it is a salutary guidelinr to judge human conduct, parricularlv in the fielcl of Administ r rtive Lau.. The authorities shor-rld ,ot keep the e,ves totally cr.r ;ed toward s the overall estimation ir-r u'hich the clelinquent officer u,as held in the recent past b-\,those rvho u,ere supervising him ert lier. F.urther the Hon'b1e Supreme Court held that to dunk ar: officer into the puddle of "d.ubtful intcgritv,' it is not enougL that the doubt fringes on a mcre hunch. That dor-rbt should be r f such a nature as n,ould reasonabl,r, and consciously be en r rtarnable by a reasonable ma, on the gi'ren nrateriar. Mere por;r ibirity is hardry sufficient to assllme that it woulcl rrave happene rr rhere rnust be preponderance ol probability for the reasonable r ein to entertain ? i998i7) SCC :] I C

doubt regarding that possibilitl'. On11, then there is justification to rarn an officer with the label "dorlbtful integrity"

71. Learned Senior Counsr:l Mr.M.Surender Rao, has place reliance on other cases reiteraring the principles. Hou,ever, in the iight of the above judicial precedent, rve have not extracted the relevant portions as the cases rclerred by us rvould squarely cover the instant issue and the learneci Standing Counsel for High Court placed reliance on the decision ol a Division Bench of the Hon'bie High Court of Madras rn R. Anburaj's case, horvever, the said judicial precedent is on a difie;ent looting and is distinguishable in law and facts.

72. Thus, in view of the above l udicial precedents, it is well settled that a linding in a dr:partmental enquirv can be termed perverse rvhen it is not suppor-ted b1, any evidence, rvhen it ignores the evidence produced by either side, or vrhen no reasonable person could have arrived at sllch a conclusion on the material avaiiable. Thus, in vielr.' of the l{on'ble Supreme Court's decision including Kuldeep Singh's (supra), that although Courts CASC normally do not interfere rvith findings recorded in departmental enquiries, interference is justilied rvhere the finding of guilt is 5+ based on no evidence or on unreliable evidence. .r '. clear distinction must be maintained betu,een an incorrect findir 6 and a perverse finding. Where there is some acceptable eviclr'r ice, the linding should not be distr-rrbed; hor'r'cve r, u'here there i , no evidence at all or the evidence docs not reasortably support the conclusion, such a finding is perverse and liable to be set asirl:

73. In the present case, as discussed above, tit :re is absolutely no material on record lrom u l-rich anv inference r f misconduct or extraneous consideration can be drarn'n with res::ct to any of the charges contained in the four charge memos. Ir the absence of evidence establishing misconduct, the imposrt on of a major penalty is wholl-r, ui rjustified anc lias resulted itr 1 rave injustice to the petitioner, r,,,ho has been punished r.vithout far 1t

74. Although the scope of jucliciai revieu, under rrticle 226 of the Constitution is limited, it cloes not prevent ,his Court from intervening where disciplinar-r' ploceedings ..c founded on perverse findings. When conclusions in an enqr.i ]' report are not supported by a proper appreciation of the evider < e and lead to an ex facie illegal ancl arbitrar--r. punrshment, l.tL s Court cannot remain a silent spectator. Particularly lr.here the r clinquent officer JJ has effectively rebutted the charges by placing substantial and credibie material on record, the Court is duty-bound to examine whether the findings are susLainable. It is cqually lr,ell settled that long and unbiemished service cannot be disregarded on the basis of mere suspicion or conjecture

75. Thus, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the High Court and the Iearned Covernment Pleader for Services-Il that this Court is precluded from reappreciating the evidence under Article 226, and that the chargcs stood conclusively proved in the departmental enquirt . is untenable and accordingly rejected.

76. In view of the above findings, rvc hold that this Court, in exerclse of its jurisdiction uncler ArLicle 226, competent to IS examine the evidentiary basis of lindings recorded in a departmental enquiry 'n,here such findings are perverse or unsupported by the record. Upon such examination, we are satisfied that the alleged misconduct in respect of all four charge memos has not been established. The findings recorded in the respective charge memos are per\,'erse and untenable and accordingly, all four charge memos are hereb)' ( uashed and set aside. Accordingly, the Point No. 1 is answered

77. As a result, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.4O. Lau' (LA, LA&J- Home-Courts.A2) Department, dt.13.07.2021 issued by the Government of Telangana, subjecting the pe r ioner to major punishment of compulsory retiremcnt from sen.i: : as Junior Civil Judge under Clause B Rule 9 of Telalgar i Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 199 L (for short 'CCA Rules') anrl the consequentiai pr rceedings 1n ROC.Nos. 1815/ 2015, 948l2Ot6. 2266 /2016 and 76 /2Or9- Vigilance Cell, dt.13.O7.2021, are liable tc be set aside Accordingly, Point No.2 is answer'.:d

78. Thus, in vier,r' of the above findings on the ssues settled by us, the Writ Petition is allolr,ed and the impugnec f.O. Ms. No. 40, Larv (LA, LA & J Home-Courts.,A2) Department. : :led 73.07.2021 as well as the prcceedings issued b1' the High C: -lrt for the State of Telangana in ROC Nos. 1815/2O15, 948/2OlC, 2266 l20 16 and 76 /2019 Vigilance Cell, dated 1.3.07 .2021, are t ereby set aside The respondents No. i & 2 are l-rereby directec to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith, urithin a period r'four (04) weeks :;7 lrom today, by counting the period frr-rm the clate of imposition of major punishment tiil the date of reinstatement as continuity of servlce. However it is made clear the petitione r/delinquent officer is not entitled to the amoLlnts tc'u,ard s her salar'-l' on the principle of no u,ork no pay for the said pericd. Further. if anv amount paid towards the 213,d pension amount during the saicl period, sha1l be treated as subsistence allou,arrce to the petitioner. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pcndirrg if any, shall stand closed That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' WitNESS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH' ON this FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETTT OAV OiiCENUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SIX SD/- P.PONNA KRISHNA SSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair CoPY to the Hon'ble Sri Justic AM KOSHY P (For His LordshiPs Kind Peru r) To AND One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice SUDDALA CHALAPATHT RAO (For His LordshiPs Kind Perusal) Hvderabad. [OUT] iji,L"bCi,ishj"rtjwrunr PAWAN KUMAR, sc FoR rsHC [oPUC] Two CD CoPies

1. 11 LR CoPies.

i. fn" UnO"t Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court Buildinqs, HYderabad.

4. The Honorable Secretary to Government' Government of Telangana' Legal

- ntirii., L"Eiijtive ntair's and Justice'

5. The Honorable Registrar (Vidirlil"j' no"o'able High' The Honorable High Court for the State of Telanqana, Hyoeraoao. o 5i"' Cc' tii'sni Snr r'r rvns*f Rnt rv(nol n4lu' Advocate I oPUCI

7. Two CCs to GP fOn SeHVf'CiiS ii,.High Court for the State of Telangana' at 8o PSK. I'9,- HIGH COURT DATED:2010212026

ORDER

WP.No.32888 o12021 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS IHE S Tt ( o() * I 2 r'i ', q 2fl26 6, }. z * : i.rrc t ,I I (ql\ ) v_-