M.Muthyalu vs High Court For The State Of Telangana & Anr.

Heard Mr.G.U.R.C. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.A.Naren Rudra, learned Standing Counsel for High Court, appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the 2^nd respondent (Annexure P.1). Vide the said impugned order, the 2^nd respondent has imposed major penalty under Rule 9 (vii) (b) of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (for short “the CCA Rules”) i.e. reduction to the lower time-scale of pay, grade from the post of Category-16 Process Server to the Category-17 Office sub-ordinate with immediate effect.

The primary contention of the petitioner in this case is that punishment of major penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner without conducting departmental enquiry as is otherwise contemplated under the CCA Rules and also the conduct rules governing the field. The fact that the impugned order has been passed without conducting an enquiry as is otherwise prescribed under the C.C.A.Rules is not in dispute. The only justification, which the learned Senior Counsel representing the High Court advancing, is that the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice, wherein, his lapses and misconduct part was clearly reflected and he was made to understand the gravity of the charges on 17.10.2025 and 29.12.2025 and therefore, there was no necessity for conducting departmental enquiry, when misconduct stands proved otherwise and even if, an enquiry has to be conducted, it would had been a mere formality. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioner was fully made to understand the charges and that he has not raised any objection to the same. Therefore, not conducting of departmental enquiry would not vitiate the major punishment part.

The respondent-Department has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Prabhu Dayal Grover^{11.(1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 279}. A perusal of the said judgment would show, particularly, the contents at paragraph Nos.6 and 7 that was a case, where the detailed show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of disciplinary action proposed and thereafter, punishment order was passed and in the said notice, articles of charges specifically reflected.

This averment is what is missing in the instant case. The show-cause notice issued to the petitioner itself was with an averment of why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated for a major misconduct. The contents of show-cause notice itself would go to show that the respondent-Department infact at the first instance wanted to have disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. However, at the later stage, for the reasons best known, straightaway, the impugned punishment order was passed.

Rule 20 of the CCA Rules prescribes the procedure to be adopted for imposing of the major penalty. The sub-Rule (1) of the said Rule mandatorily requires holding of an enquiry before imposing major penalty punishment. To quote it differently, infact, sub-Rule (1) of Rule 20 imposed embargo on the employer not to pass or impose any major penalties specified in Clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 except after conducting an enquiry. In the instant case also, there is no dispute, so far as the impugned punishment being one which falls under clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 of the CCA Rules. It is also not in dispute that the impugned punishment order has been passed without conducting departmental enquiry. Learned Senior Counsel, at this juncture, highlights the past conduct of the petitioner as well, which further compelled the 2^nd respondent in imposing the major punishment. The said contention of learned Senior Counsel representing the High Court may not give much strength for the simple reason that firstly, when the show-cause notice issued was why the disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated. Secondly, when sub-Rule-(1) of the Rule 20 mandatorily requires holding of enquiry and thirdly, considering the gravity of the nature of misconduct, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner does not fall under any of the exceptions that are carved out under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Without further delving into the matter at this juncture, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order on the technicality of non-adherence of the requirement under sub-Rule-(1) of the Rule 20 of the CCA Rules.

The impugned order, dated 30.01.2026, therefore, to the aforesaid extent not being sustainable, deserves to be and is, accordingly, set aside/quashed. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits, however, without back wages. But, the petitioner will be entitled for notional fixation of all the benefits whatever that would have accrued during the intervening period. However, the right of the respondents' stands reserved to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for the so-called misconduct, if, they so want and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the findings arrive at.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.