Disposed

Devarakonda Sreenivasulu v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Dec 2024WP/28536/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to complete departmental proceedings initiated by charge memo dated 18.04.2018 against a Multi-Purpose Health Assistant for unauthorized absence, per G.O.Ms.No.91 timelines. Court declined to enter merits and directed respondents to complete the enquiry in accordance with the G.O.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to complete the departmental enquiry initiated vide Rc.No.446/G1/2018 dated 18.04.2018 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022; no costs; miscellaneous applications close

Devarakonda Sreenivasulu Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

APHC010545622024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3333]

¶5

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28536/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Devarakonda Sreenivasulu

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Ap and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.JADA SRAVAN KUMAR

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

¶20

ORDER :

¶21

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus , for the following relief:

¶22

“…to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not concluding the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein vide Rc.No.446/G1/2018 dated 18.04.2018 within the prescribed time frame and the enquiry not being completed by six months in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 as arbitrary, unjust, illegal and amounts to infringement of the Petitioners fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to complete the departmental proceedings against the petitioner initiated against the petitioner vide as vide Rc.No.446/G1/2018 dated 18.04.2018 as expeditiously as possible in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 …”

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on contract basis as a Multi-Purpose Health Assistant (Male) vide proceedings Rc.No.8057/FS/DMHO/2002-2003, dated 30.05.2003 issued by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner served at S/C D.Honnur, PHC, Sreedharaghata, Anantapur District until 17.01.2018. After that, the petitioner went on unauthorized leave from 18.01.2018 due to family crises. A charge memo vide Rc.No.446/G1/2018 dated 18.04.2018 has been issued by the 3^rd respondent stating that the petitioner undergone unauthorized absence for duty since

¶24

¶25

18.01.2018 without prior permission of higher authorities and also not participating NID pulse polio programme in January, 2018. After recovering from personal hardships, the petitioner made multiple representations to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, requesting reinstatement to his duties. Despite the lapse of several years, no significant progress has been made in concluding the departmental proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is filed requesting this Court to expedite the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022.

¶26

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

¶27

The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.91, dated 12.09.2022 is as under:-

¶28

“ix. Government direct that in all simple cases the inquiry initiated against Government Servant shall be completed within three months either by Departmental Officers or Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the inquiry should be completed within five to six months. The Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the inquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit a note on the cases pending beyond the stipulated time to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minister.”

¶29

In view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the

¶30

petitioner are pending since 18.04.2018, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing

¶31

¶32

the respondents to complete the enquiry in accordance with the

¶33

G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022.

¶34

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶35

Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in the Writ

¶36

Petition, shall also stand closed.

¶37

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶38

Date : 06.12.2024

¶39

JLV

Devarakonda Sreenivasulu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devarakonda Sreenivasulu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.N.Rasool, Vs The a.P.State Road Transport Corporation

Guvvala Govindu, Kurnool Dist & Another Vs Prl Secy, Panchayat Raj & Rural Devp Dept., Hyd & 8 Ot

S.R.Moorthy, Chittoor Dist Vs Vc & Md, Apsrtc, Hyd & 2 Others

Smt. Kutla Uma Vs Prl. Secy., P.R. Dept. & 5 Ors.

The Depot Secretary, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Mahabub Subhani Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh