WP/26121/2025 of Danday Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana, on 11 December 2025

[ 348e J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION :26121 OF 2025 Between: Danday Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Danday Sree Ramulu, Aged about: 49 years, Occ: Bailiff/Field Assistant (Under Suspension), R/o. H.No.1 3-1 15, Flat No F1 , OM Sree Nilayam, P & T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. ...PETITIONER AND

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Law Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana The High Court of Telangana, Rep. by its Registrar General, At High Court, Hyderabad, Telangana. The Disciplinary Authority Cum Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist., L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. The Enquiry Officer cum V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist., L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana (R2 is formal party to the above W.P. and no relief is claimed against R2) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia'praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue appropriate order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2.and 3 to reinstate the Petitioner as Bailiff/Filed Assistant pending domestic Enquiry No.04t2024 before the Respondent No.4 consequently setaside the rejection order dated 3010612025 passed by the Respondent No.3.

lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to pay the arreais of Subsist-ence allowance @ 75% as entitled by the Petitioner under the Telangana Fundamental Rules, by suspending the operation of the rejection order dated 30.06.202S, pending domestic enquiry No.04/2024 before the Respondent No.4. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. VtJAyA KUMAR GOUD counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: Ms. M. sHALlNt, cp FoR sERVtcES tt counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: SRI vlvEK JAIN, sc FoR Hc The Court made the following: ORDER

TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY r'E HoNou*tillt tRI rusrICE SU DDALA CI{ALAPATHI RAO Writ tion t2l

Date: 11.12.2025 Between: Danday Venkateshwarlu ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary (l-aw Department), Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana and others' Respondents ORDER, (per lton'hle Sri,ltrstice P Sum Koshy) Heard Mr.M.Vijaya Kuurar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms.M.Shalini, learned Goverrunent Pleader for Services

- II and Mr.Vivek Jain, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the record'

2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order annexed dated 30.06.2025. Vide the said order, respondent No'3 -

Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner had rejected two claims put forth by the petitioner. Firstly, the claim for enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50oh to 75oh in rerms of FR 53 (1) (ii)

(a) and secondly, the claim for rejection of suspension and reinstatement into service.

3. The Authority i.e., respondent No.3 has rejected both the above claims. So far as enhancement of subsistence allowance is concerned, the same was rejected in terrns of the aforesaid FR 53

(l) (ii) (a). This, in the opinion o[ this Bench has been rightly rejected as FR itself specifrcally enurnerates that the subsistence allowance for an employee cannot be raised fiom 50% to 75oh in the event if the person is charged in the criminal cases on charges of corruption, mis-appropriation dernand or acceptance of legal gratification. In the instant case, the petitioner is facing prosecution on the demand of illegal gratification. Therefore, there does not seem to be any scope of interference to the irnpugned order so far as rejection of enhancement of subsistence allowance is concemed.

-

4. However, as regards the revocation of suspension is concerned, the only ground for rejection of claim of revocation is pendency of crirninal case and the disciplinary proceedings' At this juncture, learned counsel tbr the petitioner took this Bench through G.o.Ms.No.526GeneralAdministration(Services.C)Department, datedlg.08.200swhereininparagraphNos.3and4readsasunder: 3- Aecordingly, Government' hereby' direct that the employees who are under suspension for a period exceeding t\4)o years shall be reinstated pending finalizatictn of the disciplinary cases / criminal cases against them' However irt exceptional cases, for example' where the charged Officers are not co-operating for completion of investigation / inquirv or when the inquiry/investigation could not be completed due to pendency of litigation' a Committee headed hy the Secretary of the administrattve Departntent' Headed o/' the Department concerned and an fficial from the Anti Corruption Bureau (where the cases are emanated from Anti Corruption Bureau investigation). Shall review the suspension against the emPloYees orders of who are continued under suspension well before completion of two years of suspension and take a decision to - continue such employees under suspension be.yond two years, duly recording the reasons for such a decision.

4. All the Departments of Secretariat. Heacls of Departments and District Collectors should follow the above instructions scruptlouslv untl bring it to the notice of all the concerned for strict implementation of the above orders."

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

6. In the instant case, now the petitioner has already suffbred suspension for more than two years and therefore the compliance I

as is sought for in terms of G.o.Ms.No.526 dated 19.08.2008 needs to be adhered upon by all the disciplinary authorities under the State Government which includes the respondcnt No.3.

7. We see no reason why the case of the petitioner should not had been reconsidered or reviewed in terms of G.o.Ms.No.526 dated 19.08.2008. In view of the aforesaid factual narration and the observations of this Court, we are inclined to dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to adhere to G.O.Ms.N o.526 dated 19.08.2007 so f-ar as the petitioner's case is concerned, as he has already remained under suspension for more than two years and an appropriate order be passed upon reviewing the case of the petitioner whether the revocation of the suspension is called for or not.

8. Let an appropriate order be passed giving reasons ln respect of the conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority arrived at' While passing the said order, we make it clear that the observations made by the Disciplinary Authority when passing the impugned order in Annexure Pl so far as the claim for reinstatement is It I {

concerned, shall not come in the way or rather the Disciplinary Authority shall not be in any lnanner influenced by the said observation. It is expected that Disciplinary Authority shall take a decision within outer limit of six (6) weeks. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD.A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR G To, /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary (Law Department), The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana The Registrar General, The High Court of Telangana, At High Court, Hyderabad, Telangana. The Disciplinary Authority Cum Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist., L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. The Enquiry Officer cum V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy Dist., L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana One CC to SRI M. VIJAYA KUMAR GOUD, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, SC FOR HC IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl Two CD Copies BN BS

IT I i

, HIGH COURT DATED i1111212025

ORDER

WP.No.26121 ot 2025 0 g JAN 2026 z. ;R THE STl € L) ,'/ * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Or-- ? 176.r r' '(1 o