Remanded

B.V.A. Krishna Murthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2021WP/8858/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court ordered the remission of an enquiry report back to the department for further enquiry limited to specific witnesses and documents due to procedural defects, mandating completion within two months.

What did the court decide?

Enquiry report remitted for further enquiry limited to examination of witnesses in Annexure-III and documents in Annexure-II within two months.

B.V.A. Krishna Murthy Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

WP.No.8858 of 2021

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

¶5

After the substantial progress was made during the course of the submissions, Sri M.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner made a suggestion about remitting the matter. He points out that the earlier enquiry report was remitted back by a memo dated 16.04.2021 stating that it is not in accordance with the sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the A.P.Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, because the Enquiry Officer has not examined the witness in Annexure-III of the charge memo and the two documents mentioned in Annexure-II. Lastly, the Enquiry Officer has also not signed on the report.

¶6

Since these are the formal defects pointed out in the memo, learned counsel submits that if the matter is remitted, further enquiry should be limited to the examination of the cited witnesses and the documents only. He submits that a time frame should be fixed within which this exercise should be completed.

¶7

Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that remitting the matter is not really called for in these circumstances.

¶8

¶9

Since there is a procedural defect, which has been noticed (although it has not been communicated to the petitioner), this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the matter is remitted back for carrying out further enquiry only by examining the witness cited in Annexure-III of the charge memo and the documents mentioned in Annexure-II of the charge memo. This exercise of further enquiry should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶11

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶12

___________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

¶13

Date: 17.09.2021 Note: Issue C.c. by Monday. KLP

B.V.A. Krishna Murthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.V.A. Krishna Murthy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malladi Chandra Mouli Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Challapalli Sugars Ltd. Karimika Sangham Vs Irm Gard

Dr Krishna Murthy Naik Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Suresh Kumar, Vs Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences

Sanapala Umapathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sanapala Umapathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh