N. Narasimhacharyulu, v. State Of Telengana

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20430 of 2016 DATED 1st JULY, 2016 BETWEEN N.Narasimhacharyulu ....Petitioner And State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors.

..Respondents.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20430 of 2016 ORDER:

The petitioner was appointed as 'Paricharika' on NMR basis in the year 1990 in the third respondent-Temple. His services were regularized with effect from 19.4.2002. Though he was appointed as Paricharika, he was engaged with the duties of Cook. There were some allegations with regard to missing of 5000 tickets which were in the custody of one G.Gopaiah, Record Assistant. In view of the same, the Superintendent of the third respondent-Temple gave a complaint with regard to the loss of the said tickets. One K. Narasimha

Raju, Assistant Engineer was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the aforesaid complaint and during the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer called the petitioner and recorded his statement. Thereafter no enquiry took place. However, impugned order dated 17.10.2015 was passed imposing the punishment of stoppage one increment with cumulative effect. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Rules under A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent-Temple sought time on 24.06.2016 to get instructions in the matter and today when the matter is taken up for consideration, he got records and fairly submitted that no enquiry as contemplated under the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 was conducted. Since the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment, regular procedure provided under the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 has to be followed. In the instant case, no such procedure is followed before imposing the punishment, which is a major punishment, through order dated 17.10.2015. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 17.10.2015 passed by the third respondent-temple is set aside and the matter is remanded to the third respondent to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders based on the

report submitted by the enquiry officer.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above at the admission stage after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent-Temple.

Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.

-------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 1st JULY, 2016.

Msnrx