Telangana High Court
K. Ravi Kanth vs The State Of Telangana on 8 October, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.24729 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :-
" ..... to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records and set aside the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent vide Proceedings No.S/195/2021, dated 19.02.2024 declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principals of natural justice and also Rule 22 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, T.S.C.S.(CC&A) and consequently direct the respondents to consider petitioner's name for the future promotions pending disposal of the above writ petition .......".
2. Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 2
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-
The petitioner was appointed as Senior Assistant in the office of the Assistant Registrar of Chits, Adilabad, and thereafter he was made Incharge Sub- Registrar at the Sub-Registrar Office, Mancherial. During the course of his duty, he has registered numerous documents in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. While so, on the allegation that he has committed irregularities while performing duties before the Chief Vigilance Officer-cum-Joint Secretary to the Government, the said Chief Vigilance Officer has forwarded the said complaint vide letter dated 28.04.2021 to the 2nd respondent, who in turn vide letter dated 10.05.2021 directed the 4th respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry on the said complaint. The 4th respondent, vide letter dated 15.06.2021, directed the 5th respondent to verify all the documents registered by him as Incharge Sub-Registrar, Mancherial, and submit a report within 3 seven days. Pursuant thereto, the 5th respondent vide letter dated 22.06.2021 forwarded the list of documents registered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Mancherial, from 22.02.2021 to 10.03.2021, which are alleged to have been registered by the petitioner in violation of the instructions of the 2nd respondent vide Memo No.G2/257/2019, dated 29.12.2020, to the 4th respondent.
3(i) Based on the report submitted by the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent has issued a charge memo dated 12.01.2024 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 24.02.2024, stating that he had registered the documents in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and that he had not violated any of the instructions issued by the 2nd respondent, vide Memo No. G2/257/2019, dated 29.12.2020, and he has verified all necessary documents before registering and none of the documents were notified under the prohibitory 4 list under Section 22A of the Registration Act. The petitioner also stated that, in the process of registration, he might have committed some errors that would not warrant an enquiry against him. After submission of the explanation, the 4th respondent vide Proceeding No.S/195/2021 dated 19.02.2024, imposed the punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect (next increment onwards), under Rule 9 (vi) of T.S.C.S. (C.C. & A), Rules, 1991. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer-4th respondent that the charged officer has accepted the charge as such the case has to be dealt under Rule 22 of T.S.C.S. (C.C. & A) Rule, 1991 is untenable and cannot be sustained for the reason that the charge officer has never admitted to the charges 5 levelled against him. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is not commensurate with the charges leveled against him. A bare reading of the explanation submitted by the petitioner would not reveal that the petitioner has admitted the charges leveled against him. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 19.02.2024 and allow the writ petition.
6. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that while the petitioner was working as In- charge Sub Registrar at the Sub Registrar Office, Mancherial, violated the provisions of Section 172 (16) of the Telangana Municipality Act, 2019, and Section 6 113 (8) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, read with the Commissioner and Inspector General's Circular Memo No. G2/257/2019, dated 26-08-2020 and 29-12-2020, by admitting and registering (647) Documents related to unauthorized and illegal layouts during the period from 22.02.2021 to 10.03.2021, without prior approval from the competent authority. The petitioner misused his official capacity as the incharge Sub Registrar as mentioned in Letter No. E1/1913/2021, Dated: 22.06.2021.
7. It is further stated that a complaint regarding the irregularities and corrupt practices of the petitioner was received from the Government vide Memo.No.9465/Vig-1 (1), 2021-1, dated 28.04.2021 and forwarded the same to the head of the department, i.e., the Commissioner and Inspector General (R&S), Hyderabad for conducting a detailed inquiry, who in turn directed the 4th respondent to conduct a detailed 7 inquiry into the irregularities vide Memo.No.S/224/2021, dated 15.06.2021.
8. It is further stated that the 5th respondent submitted an inquiry report confirming the irregularities committed by the petitioner while working as Incharge Sub Registrar at Mancherial. Consequently, a Charge Memo under Rule 20 of the Telangana State Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, was issued to the petitioner vide Memo.No.S/224/2021, dated 12.01.2024, by the 4th respondent.
9. It is further stated that the Inspector General of Registration and Stamps issued Circular Memo No.G2/257/2019, dated 26.08.2020 and Memo. No.G2/257/2019, dated 29.12.2020 in consonance with the provisions of Section 172 (16) of the Telangana Municipality Act, 2019 and Section 113 (8) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, allowing 8 registrations of open plots/structures if the present owner acquired them through a valid registered document executed earlier. However, it was stipulated that no new plot could be registered unless it had obtained approval from the competent authority or was located within an authorized layout. The term 'New plot' refers to a plot being registered for the first time or sold by developers for the first time. The clarification further stated that there was no restriction on the registration of plots in authorized layouts, plots regularized under earlier Land Regularisation (LR) Schemes, and buildings/structures covered under earlier Building Permission Schemes (BPS)/Building Regularisation Schemes (BRS). The prohibition does not extend to the alienation or transfer of individual property, but only applies to the registration of plots/structures in unauthorised layouts or structures.
9
10. It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 02.01.2024 to the Charge Memo.No. S/224/2021, dated 12.01.2024, in which he categorically accepted that he had registered plots in an unauthorised layout without prior permission from the competent authority. Thus, the petitioner acknowledges committing a mistake while acting as In- charge Sub Registrar at Sub Registrar Office, Mancherial by violating the rules and regulations mentioned supra.
11. It is further stated that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is minor, which is commensurate with the charges levelled against him. The petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation, vide Memo.No.S/224/2021, dated 02.12.2023. Since the petitioner submitted his explanation on 02-01-2024, accepting the irregularities, a final show-cause notice was issued to 10 the petitioner on 12-02-2024, asking as to why a minor punishment of withholding five increments of pay without cumulative effect under Rule 9 (IV) of the T.S.C.S (C.C & A) Rules, 1991, should not be imposed. The petitioner has failed to submit his final defence/explanation despite being allowed opportunity to defend himself against the charges. The show-cause notice was issued on 12-02-2024, duly complying with the provisions of Rule 22 (3) of T.S.C.S. (C.C & A), Rules, 1991.
12. It is further stated that the petitioner has registered all properties as "New Plots" in unauthorised layouts without any layout approval documents issued by the competent authority. Hence, this action attracts the provisions of Clause 2 (ii) of Memo No.G2/257/2019, dated 29.12.2020, issued by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the final orders were issued through Proceeding No. S/195/2021, dated 19-02- 11 2024, imposing a minor punishment of withholding of five increments of pay without cumulative effect under Rule 9 (IV) of the T.S.C.S (C.C. & A) Rules, 1991, in compliance with due procedure of law available under Rule 22 (3) of the T.S.C.S (C.C & A) Rules, 1991.
13. It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 02-01-2024, stating as follows :-
"I have registered the documents which were already converted into plots earlier, and more than half of the plots were registered before the instruction issued. The remaining land cannot be converted into NALA or made into layouts. It is submitted that some plots are small pieces of land, and I registered the said plots as small plots. Additionally, some of the documents registered were based on non-Agriculture land documents."
Since the petitioner categorically accepted that he registered the plots in unauthorised layouts without prior permission from the competent authority, it is 12 evident that the petitioner has committed a mistake by violating the relevant rules and regulations.
14. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Director General RPF V/s Ch. Sai Babu in Civil Appeal No.4622/2000 decided on 29.01.2003 held that unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate, it should not be disturbed by the High Court/Tribunals. The plea taken by the petitioner that he has not violated any provisions of the Registration Act is conceptually inconceivable and that the petitioner instead of availing the appeal available to him to the next higher authority i.e., Commissioner and Inspector General (R&S), Hyderabad under Rule 33 (1) (ii) of (C.C & A) Rules, 1991 if he is aggrieved by the minor punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority under Rule 9 or 10 of (C.C.& A), Rules, 1991, has approached this Court invoking extraordinary 13 jurisdiction of Article 226 of Constitution of India, which is unwarranted on the facts of the case. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed without granting any relief as prayed for by the petitioner.
15. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents, after hearing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, rightly imposed the punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect (next increment onwards), under Rule 9 (vi) of T.S.C.S. (C.C. & A), Rules, 1991. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
16. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that in the instant case, the petitioner himself admitted that he 14 has registered plots in an unauthorised layout without prior permission from the competent authority. Once the petitioner himself acknowledged his mistakes, setting aside the entire penalty cannot be acceptable. In the present case, while imposing the penalty on the petitioner, the question that arises is whether the enquiry was conducted or not.
17. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Director General RPF Vs. Ch.Saai Babu in Civil Appeal No.4622 of 2000 decided on 29.01.2003 held that unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate, it should not be disturbed by High Court/Tribunals. In the present case, without conducting proper enquiry as per Rules, imposing penalty of five increments without cumulative effect is shockingly disproportionate, but 15 the authorities have wrongly imposed the penalty, which is incorrect according to the Rules.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents cannot impose the penalty of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect (next increment onwards). The main contention of the petitioner is that wherever the minor penalty of more than three annual grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed, the authorities have to conduct the enquiry. Without doing so, the authorities imposed a penalty of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect (next increment onwards), which is illegal, arbitrary and disproportionate. In support of his contentions, he relied upon Rule 22 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
16
19. Rule 22 deals with the Procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 22 (2) reads as follows :-
"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed, after considering representation, if any, made by the Government under clause (a) of that sub-rule, to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years, an enquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in the sub-rules [(3) to (18) of Rule 20, before making any order imposing on the government servant any such penalty."
20. In view of the above mentioned Rule, this Court is of the considered view that the authorities must and should conduct a full and final enquiry against the petitioner. Without doing so, imposing the punishment of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect is improper, incorrect and disproportionate and, therefore, the same is liable to be modified.
17
21. Therefore, the punishment of imposition of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 19.02.2024, is modified to that of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect.
22. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J Date: 08.10.2025 Prv