Hyderabad: Telangana High Court on Wednesday upheld the state govt’s decision to constitute the Justice PC Ghose Commission to probe alleged irregularities in the Kaleshwaram project, ruling that the inquiry was neither illegal nor arbitrary. However, the court held that the commission’s findings against the petitioners were inoperative, and no action could be taken on the basis of those findings.A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin found that the commission’s conclusions were prejudicial to the conduct and reputation of former CM and BRS chief K Chandrasekhar Rao, former minister T Harish Rao, senior IAS officer Smita Sabharwal and former chief secretary SK Joshi. The bench granted them protection from any action based on the inquiry report.“The constitution of the commission of inquiry under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act is neither illegal nor ultra vires of the Constitution and the Commissions of Inquiry Act, and the findings by the commission have been rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory safeguard provided under the Act, shall be inoperative and no action can be taken on the basis thereof,” the bench recorded while partly allowing the petitions.In its 102-page order, the bench noted that the commission’s constitution was not contrary to Supreme Court or high court judgments. Referring to the examination of KCR and Harish Rao, it said the summons did not cite adverse or incriminating material likely to affect their conduct or reputation. Rejecting the state’s claim that documents supplied were sufficient, the bench ruled that “mere supply of documents does not amount to giving a reasonable opportunity as mandated by the Act.“The bench pointed to findings against “political executives—then CM and then irrigation minister” that described rampant procedural and financial irregularities, holding “KCR directly and vicariously accountable for irregularities and illegalities in planning, construction, completion, operation and maintenance of the three barrages, and that his involvement and directions are the cause and result of irregularities and distress to the three barrages, are definitely prejudicial to his conduct and reputation.“The bench also held that the findings that KCR was pre-determined and bent upon to construct barrage at Medigadda at his free choice and the authorities associated with the decision making facilitated them, and the observations that was clinching evidence of an intent to siphon public funds to unduly favour agencies, were prejudicial to the petitioners.In the case of Joshi and Sabharwal, the bench held that no notice containing adverse material was served. Summons issued were only to attend meetings and could not be treated as notices under section 8B. Telephonic intimation to appear showed no reasonable opportunity was given. Findings that they were negligent and liable for action were recorded without statutory compliance.Pointing to the commission’s findings against the bureaucrats that they were not diligent, rather negligent and irresponsible in discharge of duties, intentionally suppressing expert committee report and holding them liable for action for violation of the business rules of the govt, the bench held that the commission failed to observe the statutory requirement of service of notice under the Act before recording findings that were prejudicial to their conduct and reputation.Citing precedents, including in similar cases of Kiran Bedi and LK Advani, the bench said disclosure of adverse material was mandatory. Notices must indicate allegations and sources to enable defence. “Section 8C provides every such person a right to cross-examine and be represented by a counsel. This is considered necessary not only to test the veracity of the statement of witness but also to impeach the credibility of such a witness,” the bench noted.It further observed that none of the incriminating material relied upon was referred to in the summons, yet the inquiry recorded adverse comments prejudicial to reputation.During early hearings, the state informed the court that the report had been referred to the CBI and assured no action would be taken against petitioners based on its findings. The court granted protection from coercive action, reaffirmed in the final verdict.The petitioners alleged the commission was illegally constituted and conducted inquiry without notice, treating them as witnesses while recording adverse findings. They argued that the process violated statutory safeguards and principles of natural justice.The state defended the probe as a matter of immense public importance, pointing to alleged irregularities and ballooning costs in the project. It maintained that the commission relied on official records and statutory materials rather than personal testimonies. State counsels also argued that the petitioners had participated voluntarily and challenged the process only after learning of adverse outcomes.The bench concluded hearings on March 12 before delivering its verdict on Wednesday.
