In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has dismissed the state government's appeal and upheld the reinstatement of a government employee, strongly criticizing the authorities for improperly enhancing a previously settled penalty. The court declared the government's action as legally unsustainable.
A Legal Battle Spanning Nearly Two Decades
The case revolves around D Ramchander, who served as a junior stenographer at Hyderabad's Jawahar Bal Bhavan. The controversy began in 2007 when he was accused of submitting fake degree certificates to secure a promotion to the post of senior assistant back in 2002.
Following disciplinary proceedings, Ramchander was found partially guilty in September 2017. The punishment imposed at that time was his demotion back to his original rank of junior stenographer, along with the recovery of excess payments made. Ramchander accepted this penalty and continued to serve in the reduced capacity.
Government's Controversial Move and Court's Intervention
In a surprising turn of events, the state government invoked Rule 40 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules in April 2023. Using this provision, the authorities enhanced the punishment to dismissal from service, effectively terminating Ramchander's employment.
This decision was challenged before a single-judge writ court, which on June 14, 2024, quashed the dismissal order. The writ court directed Ramchander's reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Unsatisfied with this outcome, the state government and the School Education department filed a writ appeal before the High Court.
High Court's Scathing Observations and Final Verdict
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin heard the appeal and delivered its judgment on December 29, 2025. The bench meticulously examined the case's chronology and found critical flaws in the government's action.
The court noted a crucial fact: Ramchander had already been acquitted of the criminal charge of producing fake certificates in a judgment dated August 2010, which was seven years before the departmental penalty was even imposed in 2017. Furthermore, he had already been suffering the demotion and recovery penalty for years.
"We are of the opinion that the enhancement of penalty invoking Rule 40 of CCA Rules by the appellants was not proper in the eye of law," the bench remarked unequivocally. It agreed with the writ court's findings, stating they required no interference.
Clarification on Reinstatement and Arrears
While dismissing the government's appeal, the High Court provided an important clarification regarding the nature of reinstatement. Since Ramchander had accepted the 2017 punishment of reduction to junior stenographer, the court ruled he should be restored to that specific post, not to his pre-2017 position.
The court ordered, "The writ petitioner would thus be entitled to be reinstated to the reduced post of Junior Stenographer pursuant to the order dated 16.09.2017. He would be entitled to the arrears of salary from the date on which he was dismissed from service… till the date of his reinstatement."
This judgment underscores the legal principle that once a penalty is accepted and served, authorities cannot arbitrarily reopen and enhance it years later, especially when the employee has already faced consequences and a related criminal case has resulted in acquittal.
