G. Chennakesava Rao vs The State Of Telangana & Ors.

Vide Order No.28(6) of 2016 dated 16.03.2016, Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), Government of India, New Delhi, allocated the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh in the post of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. Subsequently, vide Charge Memo dated 26.02.2018 issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Telangana, Hyderabad (TDP), the petitioner, who was working as Prohibition and Excise Assistant Superintendent, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, has been proceeded against the charges relating to the alleged misconduct for the year 2010-11. As per Circular Memo No.216015/Ser.C/A1/2020-1 dated 05.10.2020 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government (GAD), Government of Telangana, General Administration (Services-C) Department, the Government of Telangana would be the appointing and disciplinary authority in respect of the employees who as on appointed day are serving, posted and allocated to the State of Telangana, irrespective of the accrual of the cause of action at any point of time before the appointed day or the place where such cause of action occurred. Based on these facts and the relevant circulars, the petitioner has assailed the Charge Memo dated 26.02.2018 issued by the State of Telangana before this Court on the ground of being without jurisdiction. He retired from service on 30.06.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 07.08.2025 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.13972 of 2025.

Learned counsel for both the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as the State of Telangana have filed their counter affidavits.

Para 7 of the counter affidavit of the State of Andhra Pradesh reads as under:

It is also stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioner had committed misconduct while serving as Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent in Nalgonda District in the year 2012. Post-bifurcation of the State, he was allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh by DOPT order dated 16.03.2016. As per Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980, the departmental proceedings if not instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his reemployment shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. This Rule is not applicable to the petitioner since TDP issued charge memo in 2018 while he was still in service. It is stated in para 7 thereof that vide Circular dated 30.04.2018, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and vide Circular dated 05.10.2020, the Government of Telangana have clarified that the disciplinary authority in respect of an employee would be the one under whom on the appointed date the employee is serving, posted and allocated irrespective of the accrual of cause of action at any point of time before the appointed day or the place where such cause of action occurred.

It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 State of Telangana that vide report dated 28.01.2025, TDP, which initiated the charge memo, has concluded the disciplinary proceedings and held that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. In another disciplinary proceeding, the Commissioner of Inquiries held the charge relating to granting permission to run belt shops, proved. Consequently, vide letter dated 04.04.2026, the inquiry reports pertaining to the petitioner were forwarded to the Revenue (Excise) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the disciplinary authority, for taking further action. Now, no further process remains to be undertaken by the State of Telangana.

The counter affidavit of respondent No.1 State of Telangana stops short of answering the legal issue raised by the petitioner that the State of Telangana did not have the jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceedings vide impugned Charge Memo dated 26.02.2018 as the petitioner stood allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh vide DOPT order dated 16.03.2016. However, the petitioner has retired from service from the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the facts and circumstances noted above and the decision of Jharkhand High Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Arvind Vijay Bilung and another^{11.(2002) 1 JLJR 697} and also the order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No.13972 of 2025, we are of the considered view that the State of Telangana did not have jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceedings vide Charge Memo dated 26.02.2018 against the petitioner as he stood allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh vide DOPT order dated 16.03.2016. In such a case, the competent authority to initiate and conduct proceedings would be the State of Andhra Pradesh under whom the petitioner was serving upon allocation after bifurcation.

Therefore, the impugned Charge Memo dated 26.02.2018 is quashed. However, it is open for the competent authority under the State of Andhra Pradesh to proceed in accordance with law in respect of the alleged charges of misconduct framed against the petitioner, if permissible under the applicable service/pensionary Rules. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority for release of retiral benefits, which will be considered in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.