Telangana HC Sets Aside Constable's Removal, Finds Disciplinary Authority Relied on Past Absences Not Charged

The Telangana High Court quashed the removal of a TS SPF constable, holding that past absences already punished cannot be used again to justify a fresh major penalty.

The High Court for the State of Telangana has set aside the removal from service of K. Janardhan, a constable with the Telangana Special Protection Force (TS SPF), after finding that the disciplinary authority improperly relied on earlier periods of unauthorised absence, which had already been separately punished, to justify the major penalty of removal. Justice T. Madhavi Devi, sitting singly, allowed Writ Petition No. 10375 of 2021 on 21 May 2026, directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The court also held that the respondents remain free to conduct a fresh enquiry under Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and pass orders in accordance with law.

The Constable's Service Record and the Charge That Led to Removal

Janardhan was appointed as a constable by direct recruitment in 2001. His services were regularised and his probation declared satisfactorily completed. While posted at TS SPF, TS GENCO, Srisailam, he proceeded on medical leave from 24 August 2016 to 13 September 2016 afternoon on the advice of the Civil Assistant Surgeon, NSRS Hospital, Srisailam Dam East.

He then travelled to his native place at Gadwal, where doctors advised complete bed rest. He sought an extension of leave up to 1 March 2017. The 1st respondent, the Commandant-III, placed him under suspension on 7 March 2017. His suspension was revoked on 18 July 2017 by the 2nd respondent, who directed him to report for duty. He reported on 20 July 2017 and received fresh posting orders on 22 July 2017.

A charge memo was issued on 20 April 2017 carrying a single charge: that Janardhan had overstayed on leave from 13 September 2016 to 1 March 2017 without intimating his superior authorities, exhibiting gross negligence and dereliction of duty unbecoming of a government servant. The enquiry officer received his written statement but, according to the petitioner, did not conduct any enquiry in terms of Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. The enquiry report held the charge proved. A final show-cause notice was issued on 24 July 2017, and the punishment of removal from service followed on 11 August 2017.

Janardhan filed a statutory appeal on 23 October 2017. The 2nd respondent rejected it on 27 October 2017, taking note of earlier punishments imposed on the petitioner that were unconnected with the present charge. He then filed a revision before the 3rd respondent, who rejected it on 10 September 2020 on the ground that it was not feasible for consideration under the existing rules.

What the Respondents Argued in Their Counter

The respondents' counter affidavit described Janardhan as a habitual absentee. It set out three earlier episodes: unauthorised absence from 3 July 2011 to 9 January 2012 (192 days), for which increment was withheld for two years; unauthorised absence from 18 July 2013 to 26 January 2014 (192 days), for which increment was withheld for one year; and unauthorised absence from 15 September 2014 to 2 March 2016 (167 days), for which increment was withheld for one year and a censure was also awarded.

The respondents contended that out of six years of service from 2011 until removal, Janardhan was actually on duty for only one year and four months. They argued that despite receiving several punishments he had not rectified his conduct, and that such behaviour was a gross misconduct unbecoming of a government servant and intolerable in a disciplined armed force like the Special Protection Force.

How the Court Analysed the Enquiry and the Punishment Order

Justice Madhavi Devi examined the enquiry report and found that no Presenting Officer had been appointed and no Defence Assistant had been engaged. The charge memo referred to a prosecution witness, an Inspector of TS SPF, TS GENCO, Srisailam, but the enquiry report recorded the statement of a defence witness. The enquiry report also noted that documents sent by post from Janardhan seeking extension of medical leave had been received, and that three memos were sent to him about the improper procedure being followed for seeking leave extension. Those memos were returned with the endorsement “party refused, hence returned.” On that basis, the enquiry officer held the charge proved.

The court's central finding concerned the punishment order, not merely the enquiry. The charge memo of 20 April 2017 contained only one charge relating to the overstay from September 2016 to March 2017. The show-cause notice of 24 July 2017 also made no reference to the earlier periods of absence. Yet the disciplinary authority, when passing the removal order, and the appellate authority, when rejecting the appeal, both relied on those earlier absences to justify the severity of the penalty.

Justice Madhavi Devi held that this reliance was unsustainable. If the respondents intended to use the earlier periods of absence as a basis for the punishment, they were required to include those periods in the charge memo itself. Having failed to do so, they could not subsequently make those periods the foundation for removal from service.

The court went further. The earlier absences had already resulted in punishments that had become final. Relying on them again to impose a fresh major penalty amounted to punishing the petitioner twice for the same conduct. The court stated that it is settled legal position that a person cannot be punished twice for the same offence.

Liberty to Conduct a Fresh Enquiry Under Rule 20

While setting aside all three orders, the removal order dated 11 August 2017, the appeal rejection dated 27 October 2017, and the revision rejection dated 10 September 2020, the court did not foreclose disciplinary action entirely. It expressly preserved the respondents' liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry under Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law.

Rule 20 of the CCA Rules governs the procedure for conducting departmental enquiries, including the appointment of a Presenting Officer and the opportunity to the charged officer to engage a Defence Assistant. The court's direction to follow that rule in any fresh proceedings reflects its finding that the earlier enquiry had not been conducted in conformity with those requirements.

Outcome

Writ Petition No. 10375 of 2021 was allowed. The removal order dated 11 August 2017, the appeal rejection dated 27 October 2017, and the revision rejection dated 10 September 2020 were all set aside. Janardhan is directed to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits. The respondents may initiate a fresh enquiry under Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. No order as to costs was made. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the writ petition stand closed.