Disposed

M Phanidhar Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Sept 2024WP/13257/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, noting that an enquiry against the respondent was already conducted and the report filed. The court held the grievance was redressed, closing the petition while reserving the right to challenge the enquiry report separately. Costs reserved.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; petitioner at liberty to challenge the enquiry report dated 28.08.2020 separately. No order as to costs.

M Phanidhar Prasad Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

APHC010203142020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3310]

¶6

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 13257/2020

Between:

M Phanidhar Prasad

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.D V SASIDHAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION)

¶20

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶21

3.N BHARAT BABU

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶25

seeking the following relief:

¶26

“…..declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in not considering the petitioner representation dated 17.07.2020 and not

¶27

¶28

conducting enquiry and initiating action against the respondent No.4 and not declaring the petitioner as senior as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conduct detailed enquiry and take appropriate action on the petitioner representation dated 17.07.2020 by following due process of law and pass such other order or orders…...”

¶29

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities failed to consider the representation dated 17.07.2020 submitted by the petitioner seeking to conduct enquiry against the 4^th respondent, who got illegal appointment by playing fraud on the temple administration. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶30

The 3^rd respondent has filed counter. While denying the contents of the writ petition, has submitted the 4^th respondent seniority was already settled in all the cadres and it cannot be disturbed at this point of time. Further stated that the 4^th respondent never promoted as Assistant Executive Officer to claim seniority over the petitioner and in fact, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of A.E.O. notionally with effect from 07.03.2012. Hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶31

The 4^th respondent also filed counter and stated that earlier an enquiry was conducted on the very same baseless allegations made by the petitioner. The petitioner conveniently suppressed the fact of earlier enquiry and his involvement in an attempt to murder the 4^th respondent and

¶32

¶33

that he has no grievance with his seniority. In fact, the petitioner is senior to the 4^th respondent in the cadre of A.E.O., hence he cannot be having any grievance about the seniority of the 4^th respondent. Further stated that this writ petition is filed only to harass the 4^th respondent with repeated enquiries. Hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.G.Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent and Mr.N.Bharat Babu, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶35

On hearing, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent has filed a memo along with enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, which reveals that already enquiry was conducted against the 4^th respondent and enquiry report dated 28.08.2020 was filed before this Court.

¶36

So, in view of filing of the enquiry report, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner that not considering his representation dated 17.07.2020 and not conducting enquiry against the 4^th respondent, is redressed by way of conducting enquiry vide report dated 28.08.2020. As such, nothing survives in this writ petition for further adjudication.

¶37

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. However, the petitioner is at

¶39

liberty to challenge the enquiry report dated 28.08.2020, if he is so aggrieved.

¶40

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.

¶42

________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

¶43

ARR

¶44

¶45

HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶46

Writ Petition No.13257 of 2020

¶47

Date: 04.09.2024

¶48

ARR

M Phanidhar Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Phanidhar Prasad 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

Adusumalli Hanumantha Rayudu, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Endowments

Motakatla Anji Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Katakam Suresh, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Balusu Bhanu Krishna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

A.M.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Adinarayana Reddy, Vs Prl.Secy., Industries and Commerce (Mines-I) Dept. Hyd., and 4