Dismissed

P.R.M. Rao, v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Sept 2020WP/5800/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging a summary of service punishment. The Court directed the petitioner to raise the issue of excess penalty via representation to the competent authority within one month, ensuring the authority considers the quantum independently.

What did the court decide?

Direction to raise the issue of excess penalty via representation before the competent authority within one month.

P.R.M. Rao, Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

CHIEF JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI AND JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.5800 of 2019

¶4

(Through Video Conferencing)

¶5

PRM Rao … Petitioner Versus

¶6

Union of India, rep. by the General Manager, East Coast Railway, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneshwar, & others

… Respondents

ORAL ORDER

Dt:02.09.2020

Per J.K. Maheshwari, CJ

¶11

Aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2018 passed in O.A.No.529 of 2016 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad, the petitioner has come before this Court by way of this writ petition.

¶12

A perusal of the facts of the case reveals that, for remaining absent for 245 days, charge sheet was served on the petitioner and after holding enquiry, he was saddled with punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect, which is a major penalty. It is to be noted here that only for a period of 82 days, medical leave was sanctioned out of the said period. However, in the facts of the case, where during such period medical leave was sanctioned, passing an order of withholding three increments with cumulative effect appears to be on higher side.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has fairly stated that the said issue has not been raised before the Tribunal, however, in place of interfering in this petition, we dispose of this petition with a direction that the

¶14

¶15

issue regarding excess penalty may be raised by the petitioner afresh before the competent authority by filing appropriate representation within a period of one month from today and on filing such representation, the competent authority shall consider the issue of quantum of punishment, without being influenced by the finding so recorded by the Tribunal.

¶16

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶17

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶18

J.K. MAHESHWARI, CJ K.SURESH REDDY, J

¶19

MRR

P.R.M. Rao, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R.M. Rao, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tadangi Rama Rao, Vs Ganta Appanna

Kattamreddy Ananth Rupesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Vigneswara Agritech, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs B Chittaranjan Das

K Sai Mohan Vs G Manohar Reddy

Uma Maheswari Boddu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh