Allowed

Pydi Srinivasa v. The Andhra University

Telangana HC8 Apr 2010WP/6993/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged suspension from service for alleged involvement in preparing fake certificates. Court held that since the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed and a co-accused was reinstated, the university must review the suspension order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file a representation seeking review of suspension order; respondents to pass appropriate orders within stipulated timelines.

Pydi Srinivasa Vs The Andhra University — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6993 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed questioning the order bearing No.S.III(1)/110779/2005, dated 25.06.2005, by which, the first respondent University, as per Section 6(f) Chapter-XII of the Andhra University Administrative Manual, suspended the petitioner, while working as Typist in the University, alleging that he was arrested on 18.06.2005 by the Inspector of Police, CCS Team III, Visakhapatnam City, in connection with a criminal case registered against him on the ground that he involved in preparing fake educational certificates.

¶5

In the above said criminal case, the petitioner is shown as Accused No.11. Similar accusation was also made against one Samsada Bapiraju, who figured as Accused No.3 therein. It is submitted that though the suspension order was passed against the petitioner as early as in the year 2005, it is being continued even after filing the charge sheet.

¶6

When the matter came up for hearing on the last two occasions, it was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel for the University to get instructions. Today, on instructions, he submitted that Accused No.3 has already been reinstated into service and that in connection with the crime registered against the petitioner, a final report as contemplated under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has also been filed. The impugned order of suspension is passed only with reference to the criminal case registered against the petitioner in the year 2005. Even according to the respondents, no other independent departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. When the final report is filed, the university authorities ought to have

¶7

reviewed the case of the petitioner whether to continue his suspension or not. The very object of placing a person under suspension in connection with the criminal case is to keep him away from the record in order to conduct fair investigation and to submit final report. As much as the petitioner was already placed under suspension in the year 2005 and as the final report has already been filed, I deem it as a fit case to issue directions to the respondents to review the impugned order.

¶8

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a representation seeking to review the order of suspension, dated 25.06.2005, before the respondents, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. If any such representation is filed, the respondents shall consider and pass appropriate orders reviewing the impugned order, within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter. While considering such claim, they shall keep in mind the reinstatement of Accused No.3, who also involved in the same criminal case registered against the petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶9

______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 8^th APRIL, 2010. kvni

Pydi Srinivasa v. The Andhra University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pydi Srinivasa v. The Andhra University

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

V.Ramesh Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary

Tummala Pitchaiah Vs Government of a.P., rep. by its Special Chief Secretary

Ch. Satyanarayana Vs A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Dasaram Kanaka Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Povula Ram Reddy Vs The Selection Grade City Municipality, Warangal

Ch.Venkat Rddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh