Disposed

Y.Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Dec 2020WP/4078/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226/227 regarding delayed departmental proceedings violating a 2008 Government Order and Apex Court precedent, the court directed the third respondent to conclude the enquiry and release consequential benefits within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to complete the enquiry within six weeks of receipt of this order.

Y.Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.4078 OF 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the

¶5

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶6

“Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings issued vide Proceedings No.601/2013 dated 28.09.2018 by the 3rd respondent as illegal arbitrary against the G.O.Ms. No 679 dated 01.11.2008 and also contrary to the judgment rendered in WP No.2826 of 2013 dated 26.04.2013 which was rendered on the ground of delay and latches in finalizing the departmental proceedings and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents release all the consequential benefits including promotion.”

¶7

The only grievance of this petitioner before this Court is that,

¶8

an enquiry was initiated and an Enquiry Officer was appointed, notice was served to this petitioner and charges were framed. But, the proceedings are not terminated till date, though seven years have been elapsed which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 01.11.2008 and judgment of the Apex Court reported P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board¹ and requested to issue a direction as stated above.

¶9

Fairly, learned Government Pleader for Services-I requested to issue appropriate direction to the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible.

¶10

1 (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 636

¶11

MSM,J WP.No.4078 of 2020

¶12

¶13

In view of the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, by applying the principle laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court reported in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board (referred supra) and G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 01.11.2008, concerned authority/third respondent is directed to complete the enquiry within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶14

With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶15

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand closed.

¶16

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

Date:21.12.2020 Note: copy by 28.12.2020 b/o SP

Y.Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kannuri Bangarayya at Baburao (Died) and 2 Othrs Vs K. Nageswara Rao, E.G.Dist and 4 Othrs

M/S Kalyan Complex Vs Smt. Vadami Devi at Bidami Devi

Dutta Venkateswara Rao Vs Akula Edukondala Venkateswara Rao

M v Dp Kumar Vs the State of Ap

Sidum Sukesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Sreehari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh