Disposed

Faruddin v. The Tobacco Board, Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC23 Jun 2009WP/4578/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his continued suspension from service as a Group-D employee due to a pending criminal case. The Court held that the suspension could be reviewed once the charge sheet was furnished and directed both parties to take appropriate decisions within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to obtain and submit charge sheet; respondent directed to review and decide on reinstatement within one month.

Faruddin Vs The Tobacco Board, Rep. by its Secretary — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4578 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Faruddin S/o. Mahaboob Saheb, Tobacco Board, Podili, Prakasam District.

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Tobacco Board, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, Guntur.

¶11

.....RESPONDENT

¶12

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 of Certiorari calling for all the connected records including the impugned order of the respondent in Ref.No. TB/Vig/IF-GRP-D/2007/304 dt. 1-10-2007 and the consequential extension orders, dt. 5-3-2008, 1-92008 and 12-2-2008 and quash the same as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the respondent herein to release the petitioner from suspension by continuing him into service.

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMAMOHANMAHADEVA

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶17

W.P.No.4578 of 2009

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the validity of the continued suspension of the writ petitioner from service as ordered by the respondent Tobacco Board.

¶20

The writ petitioner is a Group-D employee, working at Auction Platform No.22, Podili in Prakasam District. On the ground that he has been involved in Criminal Case No.88 of 2007 and that he was apprehended by the Police on 10-062007, he has been placed under suspension. Ever since then, the order of suspension is extended from time to time.

¶21

The case of the respondent Board is that they have received only intimation that the writ petitioner is involved in a grave crime resulting in the death of one individual and beyond that the Board has not been furnished the charge sheet.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that he has been arrayed as Accused No.10 by the Police only because some of his close relations have been shown as the prime accused in the crime and that he was not even available at the scene of offence and never played any role in the crime.

¶23

However, these are all the matters, which the respondent Board has to examine with reference to the contents of the charge sheet.

¶24

It is stated that the Police, Chebrolu, have already lodged the charge sheet with the competent criminal court. It

¶25

is open to the petitioner to obtain a certified copy of the charge sheet from the competent criminal court and make the same available for consideration of the respondent Board so as to enable it to review the orders of his continuance suspension. It is open to the respondent Tobacco Board to consider as to whether it is appropriate to reinstate the writ petitioner into service pending trial of the criminal case, if it is satisfied that no specific acts of commission or omission are attributed in the charge sheet against the writ petitioner. Appropriate decision in the matter be taken within a period of one month from the date on which a copy of the charge sheet is made available by the writ petitioner.

¶26

With this, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶27

-------------------------------Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J

¶28

mrk 23^rd June 2009

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To 1) 2 CD copies

¶33

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}

Faruddin v. The Tobacco Board, Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faruddin v. The Tobacco Board, Rep. by its Secretary

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

A. Ravindranatha Reddy, Vs A.P. Transco, rep by its Chairman

D. Atchuta Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Department

Yamarthi Rose Mary, Vs The Regional Joint Director of School Education

Pothula Nagendra, Vs The Deputy Chief Traffice Managerr, (Enquiry Officer)

G.Papaiah, Vs The General Manager

T.Veerachary Vs The Principal Secretary to Government