Allowed

B. Bala Subbarayudu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jul 2022WP/378/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging a Government Order dismissing a Deputy Surveyor without an enquiry. The petitioner argued the action was arbitrary and violated natural justice principles. The court quashed the dismissal order but left respondents free to initiate disciplinary proceedings with due process.

What did the court decide?

The G.O.Ms.No.354 dated 09.08.2019 dismissing the petitioner is set aside. Respondents are at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings following due process of law.

B. Bala Subbarayudu Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.378 of 2020

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶5

“to i ssue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in issuing the impugned G.O.Ms.354 Revenue Vigilance-I Department, dated 09.08.2019 and consequent issuance of the Proceedings in Rc. No. A2/1675/19, dated 18.12.2019 issued by the 3^rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary which is without enquiry and is in contravention of the Orders passed by this Honble Court in W.P. No.16480 of 2019 dated 22.10.019 and consequently set aside the G.0.Ms.354 Revenue Vigilance Department, dated 09.08.2019 issued by the 1^st respondent and to pass such other or further orders……. ”

¶6

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner presently working as Deputy Surveyor in the office of the 4^th respondent. The petitioner was falsely implicated in ACB trap case on 24.7.2014. The charge sheet was filed by the Bureau which was numbered as C.C.No.31 of 2015. Thereafter the petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool vide order dated 04.06.2019 in C.C.No.31 of 2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal NO.456 of 2019 before this Court to suspend the sentence of imprisonment.

¶7

While the matter stood thus, the 1^st respondent issued impugned order of dismissal vide G.O.Ms.No.354, Revenue (Vigilance.I) Department, dated 09.08.2019. It is stated that the 4^th respondent, who is the controlling officer to the

¶8

¶9

petitioner asked him to discharge the duties pending receipt of order from the 2^nd respondent and accordingly the petitioner has been discharging his duties as such. The petitioner has been discharging his duties as Deputy Surveyor in B.Kodur Mandal, even after receipt of the impugned G.O but to his utter shock and dismay the 3^rd respondent issued a circular dated 18.12.2019 appointing one Pavan Kuamr as Incharge Deputy Surveyor in place without there being any office order dismissing the petitioner from service. Consequent to the above circular, the petitioner is not allowed to function as Deputy Surveyor, B.Koduru Mandal. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶10

Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent while denying all the allegations made in the petition contended that aggrieved by the conviction awarded by the Spl. Judge for ACB cases in C.C.No.31 of 2015 dated 04.06.2019, the petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2019 before this Court to suspend the sentence of imprisonment. Moreover, the petitioner contending that he discharged his duties even after receipt of dismissal order upto 18.12.2019 till one Sri Pavan Kuamr was kept in-charge as Deputy Surveyor etc needs no consideration as the dismissal orders came into force from the date of receipt by the petitioner and usually the process of incharge arrange would be basing on administrative convenience and the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he discharged his duties upto 18.12.2019, since there is no provision to continue in Government service even after dismissal.

¶11

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was involved in the ACB case and he was convicted by virtue of order dated 04.06.2019 in C.C No.31 of 2015 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of SPE& ACB Cases, Kurnool. Consequent to the said conviction, the 1^st respondent issued impugned order of dismissal vide G.O.Ms.No.354, Revenue (Vigilance.I) Department, dated 09.08.2019, without conducting any enquiry. It is obvious from the said G.O., itself, that no enquiry was conducted for the dismissal of the petitioner, which is a major punishment.

¶14

Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, this Court deems fit to set aside the G.O.Ms.No.354, dated 09.08.2019. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings and take action by following due process of law.

¶15

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶16

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

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

¶18

Date : 18-07-2022 Gvl

¶19

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶20

¶21

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.378 of 2020

¶23

Date : 18.07.2022

¶24

Gvl

B. Bala Subbarayudu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Bala Subbarayudu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G,S.Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boni Venkata Rao Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

R. Stayanarayana Raju Vs A.P. Eastren Power Distribution Company Limited

Ch. Subramanayam Vs State of Ap

S. Sridevi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

U.V. Subba Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh