Disposed

Mr I.V Prasad v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Feb 2010WP/4199/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Tribunal's dismissal of his appeal regarding acceptance of his resignation. The Court held that seeking transfer does not equal withdrawing resignation and upheld the Tribunal order but granted liberty to submit a fresh representation. Respondents must consider it and decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty granted to petitioner to make representation under Rule 30(b) for revocation of resignation within two weeks, to be decided within two months.

Mr I.V Prasad Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

W.P.No.4199 of 2010

¶3

ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed)

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 27.08.2009 passed in O.S.No.8584 of 2003 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and for quashing the same.

¶5

2. The petitioner, while working as Police Constable (Operator) in Karimnagar Headquarters, was placed under suspension on 18.04.2002 on the ground that a case in Crime No.174 of 2001 under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against him based on the complaint given by his wife. Challenging the said suspension, he filed O.A.No.5401 of 2002 and the same was allowed on 11.06.2002 directing the respondents to reinstate him into service. Accordingly, his suspension was revoked by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 09.07.2002. Thereafter, due to the disputes between him and his wife and also vexed with the attitude of his superiors, the petitioner submitted his resignation letter dated 12.11.2002 to the Inspector General of Police, Communications, Hyderabad. Subsequently, he changed his decision and made a representation dated 24.12.2002 to the 2^nd respondent seeking to transfer him from Karimnagar to West Godavari. As the said representation has not been considered, he filed O.A.No.7051 of 2003, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 28.10.2003 directing the respondents to consider the said

¶6

representation. Despite the said order, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 03.11.2003 accepting his resignation with effect from 04.07.2002 i.e., from the date of revoking his suspension. Aggrieved by the same, he filed O.A.No.8584 of 2003 and the same was dismissed on 27.08.2009. Challenging the same, he filed the present writ petition.

¶7

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though he submitted his resignation letter on 12.11.2002, subsequently he submitted a representation dated 24.12.2002 seeking transfer, but as no action was taken thereon he filed O.A.No.7051 of 2003, that itself indicate that the petitioner wants to continue in service. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the respondents have not considered his representation, dated 24.12.2002, in spite of the direction in O.A.No.7051 of 2003. He further contended that the petitioner is a poor person and without employment, he cannot survive and thus, he prays to consider his representation dated 24.12.2002 by revoking his resignation letter dated 12.11.2002.

¶9

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that since the petitioner did not withdraw his resignation letter dated 12.11.2002 before it was accepted on 03.11.2003 i.e., even after one year, and he himself tendered his resignation without any force from his superiors, the Tribunal has rightly passed the order impugned, which needs no interference by this Court. He further contended that if the petitioner submits a representation under Rule 30(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate

¶10

Service Rules (for short ‘the Rules’), the same will be considered in accordance with law.

¶11

6. Admittedly, the petitioner tendered his resignation vide letter dated 12.11.2002 on the ground of harassment made by his superiors and also under stress and mental imbalance. Thereafter, he made a representation dated 24.12.2002 seeking to transfer him from Karimnagar to West Godavari, without referring the said resignation letter. Even after submission of his representation, he did not withdraw his resignation letter before it was accepted on 03.11.2003 i.e., even after one year. As the petitioner himself tendered his resignation under stress and imbalance condition, the Tribunal has rightly passed the order impugned, which needs no interference by this Court. Further, submission of a representation by the petitioner seeking transfer cannot be treated as that he wants to continue in service. Therefore, we find no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. However, to meet the ends of justice, liberty is given to the petitioner to make a representation under Rule 30(b) of the Rules, to the respondents for revocation of his resignation, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation, the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, within two months thereafter.

¶12

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶13

_____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

¶14

SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶15

Date:24.02.2010 Note:

¶16

Issue CC within three days. (Bo) sj

Mr I.V Prasad v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr I.V Prasad v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Kacham Kondaiah Vs The Andhra Bank, Karimnagar Branch

D.Golya Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.byits

The Govt of a.P., rep. by its Prl., Secretary, Vs Sri O. Ramanna, Ex-L.D.C.

Kondapalli Prasada Rao Vs Post Master General

M/s.Ministry Ramdarash Ramkishun Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

V. Vinay Vidyadhar Vs Government of India, Ministry of Water Resources