Disposed

V Rajeswara Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Nov 2024WP/26997/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a retired employee whose retirement benefits were withheld pending disciplinary inquiry. The Court, without deciding merits, directed the respondents to conclude the inquiry within three months in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to conclude the inquiry within three months in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022.

V Rajeswara Rao Vs the State of Ap — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

[3331]

¶2

APHC010518882024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

SATURDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26997/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

V RAJESWARA RAO, S/O V.V.S.N. MURTHY AGE 64 YEARS, OCC RETD. EMPLOYEE, R/O FLAT NO.302, AMULYA ENCLAVE, OPP R.K. MISSION, R.K. BEACH, 3RD FLOOR, HARBOUR PARK ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (VIG.II)DEPT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶13

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶14

THE INQUIRY OFFICER AND SECRETARY, A.P. PROPERTY TAX BOARD AND ADDL. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE C.D. AND M.A., MANGALAGIRI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the high action of the respondent

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

SRS,J W.P.No.26997 of 2024

¶19

in issuing (l)G.O. Rt. No.356 of M.A. and U.D. (Vig.II-2) Dept, dated 14.05.2019, (2)G.O. Rt. No.316 of M.A. and U.D. (Vig.III) Department dated 12.05.2023 and (3)G.O. Rt. No.342 of M.A. and U.D. (Vig.III) Dept. dated 30.05.2023, which are arbitrary, bad and illegal, irrational and hit by the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, unconstitutional, without application of mind, abuse of process of law, if it is further continued, and also contrary to the A.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and contrary to the Memo issued by the 1st respondent, consequently quash all the G.Os. as stated supra in the interest of justice.

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.KURITI BHASKARA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

:: ORDER ::

¶27

Heard Sri K.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appeared for the respondents.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.356 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.II.2) Department, dated 14.05.2019 (Ex.P1), was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a written defence vide Ex.P2. An inquiry officer was appointed vide G.O.Rt.No.316 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.III) Department, dated 12.05.2023 (Ex.P3) and the Presenting Officer was appointed vide G.O.Rt.No.342 General Administration & Urban Development (Vig.III) Department, dated 30.05.2023 (Ex.P4). In the meantime, the

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

SRS,J W.P.No.26997 of 2024

¶31

petitioner retired from the service on 30.11.2020, upon attaining the age of superannuation. He also would submit that the petitioner's retirement benefits were not released due to the pendency of the aforementioned charge memo.

¶32

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would submit that respondent authorities will conclude the inquiry in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022.

¶33

The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, and thereafter G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, fixing timelines to complete the inquiry within three months in simple and six months in case of complicated cases respectively. However, in the case at hand, despite appointing inquiry and presenting officers, the inquiry has not been concluded so far, for the reasons best known.

¶34

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondent authorities to conclude the inquiry within three (03) months, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶37

Date : 23.11.2024 TVN

¶38

Page 4 of 4

¶39

SRS,J W.P.No.26997 of 2024

¶40

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶42

WRIT PETITION NO: 26997 of 2024

¶43

Date : 23.11.2024 TVN

V Rajeswara Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Rajeswara Rao v. the State of Ap

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

T. Chenchuramaiah Vs Sri Usha Rani

P Swarna Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Jonnalagadda Kataksham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kandavalli Amit Kumar Vs the Life Insurance Corporation of India

Maddu Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

N Nagalakshmi Vs the State of Ap