Disposed

B.Abdul Rawoof, v. The Vice Chairman and M.D., a.P.State Civil Supplies

Telangana HC2 Aug 2004WP/13344/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court discharged a writ petition seeking reinstatement after indefinite suspension. It directed the respondent to decide on the petitioner's representation within four weeks and disposed of the matter at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representation within four weeks from receipt of the order.

B.Abdul Rawoof, Vs The Vice Chairman and M.D… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 13344 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

B.Abdul Rawoof, S/o.Mohiddin Saheb,Technical Assistant O/o. District Manager, A.P.State Civil Supplies Cooperative ltd., Karimnagar Dist.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶12

.....RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service as Technical Asst. Gr.II with the respondent and consequently declare that the Proc.No.P.Admn A2/301/98 dt.16-52003 issued by the respondent herein in placing him under suspension as illegal, null and void by holding the action of the respondent in indefinitely continuing the petitioner under suspension is highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and subversive of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and pass. such other order or orders as this Hon’ble court May deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶16

The Court made the following at the stage of admission :

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is a Technical Assistant Gr.II in the Respondent-A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.,Hyderabad. He was kept under suspension with effect from 16-05-2003 on the ground that there is a criminal charge against him for possessing disproportionate assets, which is an offence involving moral turpitude. The petitioner contends that as per Rules the order of suspension has to be extended from time to time for every six(6) months and as there is no further extension of the suspension order, he made a representation on 23-06-2004 to the respondent to revoke the suspension order and permit him to resume to duty. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent did not pass any order on the said representation. Therefore, he approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders on his representation.

¶19

In the light of the grievance of the petitioner, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner dated 23-06-2004 by taking into consideration the suspension if in force and communicate the said order to the petitioner within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.

2^nd AUGUST 2004

NOTE

Furnish

CC in two days.

(B/O)

*TSNR

1. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶29

2. Two C.Cs to the Government Pleader forCivilSupplies, High Court ofA.P. (OUT)

¶30

3. Two C.D.COPIES

B.Abdul Rawoof, v. The Vice Chairman and M.D., a.P.State Civil Supplies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Abdul Rawoof, v. The Vice Chairman and M.D., a.P.State Civil Supplies

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

A. Kishan, Vs Depot Manager

S.Ahamad Vs a.P.State Road Transport Corporation Rep.

S.V. Simhachalam Vs Vijayawada Municiopal Corporation

G.V. Raju S/o Veer Raju Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc.

T.Ruthamma Vs The Executive Director

M. Krishna S/o M. Someshwara Rao Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation