Disposed

K Buliveeranna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2023WP/2388/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus for reinstatement. It directed the disciplinary authority to act on the submitted inquiry report and reinstate the petitioner within six weeks, as continued suspension post-inquiry lacks legal justification.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd Respondent to pass appropriate orders under the rules and reinstate the petitioner within six weeks.

K Buliveeranna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 2388 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

¶5

“...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2^nd respondent in taking appropriate action on the representation dated 17.10.2022 made for reinstating the petitioner into the service is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” (in verbatim)

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the respondents.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was joined as Bill Collector on 17.04.1992 at Kutukuluru Gram Panchayat, Anaparthy Mandal (presently East Godavari District) and on 10.07.1999 he was promoted as Junior Assistant. Thereafter, on 25.02.2014, the petitioner was promoted as Grade-II Panchayat Secretary and posted at Verdurupaka Gram Panchayat. Later, on 21.07.2019 the petitioner was transferred to Kattipudi Gram Panchayat. All

¶8

¶9

these years, the petitioner was working with the utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities.

¶10

(a). Learned counsel would submit that the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings No.1414118/CPR&RD/B1/2020 dated 24.05.2021 suspending the petitioner and also issued Charge Memo No.1414118/CPR&RD/B1/2020 dated 15.12.2021 by levelling three charges. Learned counsel would further submit that the 2^nd respondent appointed the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Kakinada, as Enquiry Officer. During the pendency of the enquiry, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings No. 1414118/CPR&RD/B1/2021 dated 16.05.2022, extending the period of suspension for further period of 6 months or until finalisation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, or whichever is earlier. The action of the 2^nd respondent in extending the suspension period for unlimited period is contrary to law and is illegal and arbitrary, for which the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 17.10.2022 to the 2^nd respondent requesting to reinstate him into service. But, as the same was not considered by the 2^nd respondent, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondent to reinstate him into service.

¶11

Learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the respondents, on written instructions of 2^nd respondent

¶12

¶13

dated 03.02.2023, would submit that the Inquiry Officer/Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Kakinada, has submitted an Inquiry Report letter 15.10.2022 and the same is under examination with the Disciplinary Authority i.e., the 2^nd respondent and after thorough examination, further action will be taken by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 21 of APSC (CC&A) Rules, 1991. He would further submit that with regard to the reinstatement, it will be reviewed after verification of records with regard to Inquiry Report only.

¶14

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the submissions made by learned Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of. It is an admitted fact that the inquiry was completed and the Inquiry Officer had submitted his inquiry report dated 15.10.2022 and the same was under examination with the 2^nd respondent who is the disciplinary authority. Once the enquiry is completed, keeping the delinquent under suspension is against the object of jurisprudence of law of suspension. In view of the same, the 2^nd respondent is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders as per the rules in vogue and in accordance with law, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the

¶15

¶16

respondents are specifically directed to reinstate the petitioner

¶17

into service.

¶18

With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is

¶19

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶21

the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶22

______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶23

15^th February, 2023. cbn

¶24

¶25

260

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No. 2388 of 2023 (disposed of)

¶28

15^th February, 2023

¶29

CBN

K Buliveeranna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Buliveeranna 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

Nagaram Balakrishnan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Boddupudi Malakondamma Vs the State of Ap

Rajavarapu Venkata Subrahmanyam Vs the State of Ap

C Ankaiah Vs the State of Ap

S.Markandeyulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

N Mohan Kumar Vs the State of Ap