Telangana HC Faults IPS Officer Acting as Magistrate in Land Row

Hyderabad: Justice K. Lakshman of the Telangana High Court reiterated that, when an IPS officer acts as an Executive Magistrate, he or she must examine all relevant material before directing the personal appearance of the parties concerned. The judge disposed of a writ petition, while setting aside the bind-over proceedings initiated against the promoters and directors of M/s Nockel India Private Limited, citing lack of due process, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Special Executive Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rajendranagar Zone. The judge was dealing with a writ petition filed by Lekkala Purushotam Naidu, managing partner of M/s Vision Resorts, and others, challenging orders issued in August under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were mechanically passed based solely on a report by the Narsingi Police, which referred to four pending criminal cases, without following the due procedure. They further alleged that the orders were based on complaints lodged by a retired IPS officer, E. Damodar, despite ongoing civil and arbitration disputes over large land parcels, and despite favourable court orders. The government pleader contended that the petitioners were allegedly involved in serious offenses, including criminal intimidation, cheating, and property grabbing, and that preventive measures were necessary to preserve public peace and order. However, the judge observed that the Executive Magistrate failed to apply independent judicial mind and did not comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under BNSS. Consequently, the judge quashed the bind-over orders and directed a fresh inquiry, strictly in accordance with the law.

HC upholds SBI ex parte inquiry

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court held that an ex parte inquiry does not amount to a violation of natural justice when the delinquent employee deliberately abstains from participating despite repeated opportunities. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Vijay Kumar Chicklinge. The petitioner joined the State Bank of Hyderabad in 1980 and rose to the position of manager by May 2013, but was suspended in October 2014 over irregularities in Travel Allowance (TA) claims amounting to Rs 3.22 lakh. A formal charge sheet followed in May 2015, accusing him of improper audit practices and submission of wrongful TA bills. The petitioner alleged multiple procedural violations during the disciplinary inquiry, including denial of cross-examination of witnesses, lack of access to documents, and ex parte proceedings conducted while he was hospitalised. He claimed these actions amounted to a denial of natural justice. The respondents submitted that repeated adjournments were sought by the petitioner himself, often citing health-related reasons, without complying with the bank’s directive for medical examination. The inquiry process was delayed multiple times over eight months, with several adjournments for regular hearings and a few for preliminary hearings. The judge held that the inquiry authority was compelled to proceed ex parte due to the petitioner’s consistent non-cooperation and deliberate delay tactics.

HC quashes case on retired officer

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired government employee, on grounds of inordinate delay. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by K. Shedrak seeking relief against the prolonged delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings initiated by the district collector (SCDD), Warangal (Urban), through a charge memo in 2018. The proceedings stemmed from a surprise check conducted by Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) officials in March 2015, at the Social Welfare Boys Hostel in Kodakandla. The petitioner, who served initially as a teacher and later as a Hostel Welfare Officer Grade II, retired in 2018. Despite cooperating fully and submitting a detailed explanation denying the charges, the inquiry officer’s report submitted in June 2020 remained pending without any final decision. As a result, the petitioner’s retirement benefits continued to be withheld. The petitioner argued that this inordinate delay violated his constitutional rights and judicial precedents emphasising the right to a timely resolution of disciplinary proceedings. It was contended that the delay was arbitrary and unjustified, causing undue mental agony and financial hardship. The judge held that the unexplained delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings amounted to a denial of the right to a fair and speedy trial and affected the petitioner’s fundamental rights and directed the state government to release all pending retiral benefits, including full pension, gratuity, and commutation value of pension.

Plea for separate Milad rally denied

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea seeking permission to conduct a religious rally in Nizamabad on the occasion of Milad-un-Nabi. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by the Zilye Markazi Milad committee. The petitioner contended that their earlier petition was rejected only because the proposed date coincided with Ganesh immersion and that they had now made a fresh representation seeking permission for September 12 or 14. The petitioner argued that refusal of permission amounted to denial of their constitutional rights. The state and police authorities, in their response, opposed the plea, submitting that two different committees had sought permission for rallies and that approval had already been granted to one. They pointed out that the petitioner’s request was for a route passing through a mixed community and communally sensitive area, raising concerns over possible law and order issues if rival rallies were held. During the hearing, the judge suggested that the petitioner join the main committee to participate in the already permitted rally. Though the petitioner maintained that they belonged to a different committee, the judge reiterated that a separate rally could not be allowed. Observing that granting permission to both groups could lead to confrontation and breach of peace, the judge dismissed the writ plea.