Partly allowed

P Venkata Ratnam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Feb 2023WP/3275/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the suspension and non-initiation of departmental proceedings against a Panchayat Secretary. The court directed the respondent to complete disciplinary proceedings within two months, else the petitioner shall be reinstated.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd Respondent to complete the entire disciplinary proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

P Venkata Ratnam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3275 OF 2023

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.1304302/CPR and RD/B2/2020 dated 03/05/2021 issued by the 2^nd respondent, whereunder suspended the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary while he was working at Chelluru Gram Panchayat and the Proceedings No.1397446/CPR and RD/B1/2021 dated 26/08/2022 issued extending the suspension for further period of six months is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders…”

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government

¶7

Pleader for the respondents.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Panchayat Secretary at Chelluru Gram Panchayat. While so, the petitioner was kept under suspension by the 2^nd respondent vide proceedings dated 03.05.2021. He further submits that even though more than 1½ was elapsed, no departmental proceedings were initiated pursuant to the suspension proceedings dated 03.05.2021. Moreover, without initiating any departmental proceedings the suspension period of the petitioner was extended vide proceedings dated 26.08.2022 for a

¶9

¶10

period of six months and the said extension is going to be expired by 26.02.2023. But, till today the departmental enquiry was not yet initiated except appointing an officer. Therefore, in view of the non-completion of disciplinary proceedings, as per G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that since the enquiry officer is already appointed, the enquiry can be completed within a reasonable period as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022.

¶12

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent herein to complete the entire disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the proceedings dated 03.05.2021 within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner is entitled to reinstate into service.

¶13

With the above direction, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

¶15

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in

¶16

the writ petition, shall also stand closed.

¶17

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶18

Date: 16.02.2023 NOTE: C.C. by 21.02.2023 (B/o) BSP

¶19

¶20

105

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶22

WRIT PETITION.No.3275 of 2023

¶23

Date: 16.02.2023 NOTE: C.C. by 21.02.2023 (B/o) BSP

P Venkata Ratnam v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Venkata Ratnam 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

C Ankaiah Vs the State of Ap

K Buliveeranna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Markandeyulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Madasu Premchand, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Mahabub Basha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

U Suguna Vs the State of Ap