High Court directed respondent to decide petitioner's review application regarding suspension order within four weeks, disposing the writ petition at admission stage without costs.
Direction to pass appropriate order on representation for review of suspension within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU
WRIT PETITION NO : 14095 of 2004
Between:
Smt M. Nirmala W/o Late Namah Shivaya (Under Suspension) at APCO Handloom House, Kotagummam, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Divisional Marketing Officer, APCO Bhavan, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District 2 The Managing Director, APCO Weavers Bhavan, H. No. 3-5-770 Narayanguda, Hyderabad
.....RESPONDENTS
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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not completing the enquiry initiated as against the petitioner as early as on 29-5-2003, while placing her under suspension, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into duty by reviewing the order of suspension by proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 29-5-2003 vide proceedings NO. 4/96/Admn.III-1/C.4, Rjy/Deficit/1991 forthwith
Counsel for the Petitioner: MRC.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos: Mr. N. RAJESHWAR RAO.
S.C for APCO
The Court at the admission stage made the following ORDER:
The petitioner is working as a Sales Woman in the respondent Handloom House. A Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and she was kept under suspension with effect from 29.05.2003. The enquiry is said to be in progress.
The learned counsel for the petitioner represents that she made a representation to the second respondent on 02.06.2004 for review of the suspension order. But, the respondents did not pass any order on the said representation, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents for passing orders on the application of the petitioner for review of the suspension order dated 29.05.2003 .
In the light of the circumstances explained by the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner dated 02.06.2004 for review of the suspension order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction at the admission stage. No costs.
11.08.2004
Note: Furnish CC by tomorrow
B/o
va
To
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent is directed to pass appropriate order on the petitioner's representation for review of suspension.
Whether the writ petition allowing such direction can be disposed at admission stage.
Whether the petitioner is directed to be reinstated.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt M. Nirmala
The Managing Director, APCO Weavers Bhavan
G.YETHIRAJULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
