Disposed

S.Goverdhan Reddy, S/o S. Raji Reddy, v. The Hyderabad Agriculture Cooperative Association Ltd.

Telangana HC19 Aug 2011WP/21782/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his suspension based on allegations of holding disproportionate assets. The court held the suspension not illegal but directed respondents to review the case in three months. The petitioner must be reinstated whether or not a charge sheet is filed by that time.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be reinstated within three months if no charge sheet is filed by then.

S.Goverdhan Reddy, S/o S. Raji Reddy, Vs The Hyderabad… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 21782 OF 2011

¶3

DT.19.08.2011

¶4

Between: S.Goverdhan Reddy

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The Hyderabad Agriculture Cooperative Association Ltd, Hyd and ors

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Venkat Ram Reddy

¶10

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri Vishweswara Reddy

¶11

Counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4: G.P. for Cooperation

¶12

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 21782 OF 2011

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

The petitioner is working as Branch Manager in The Hyderabad Agriculture Cooperative Association Ltd, Hyderabad/first respondent herein. He was placed under suspension through proceedings No.HACA/Estt/2011 dated 29.4.2011 on the basis of a radio message received from the Inspector of Police, CIU, ACB, Hyderabad. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of suspension. He states that though three months have elapsed, the respondents did not furnish the reasons on account of which the suspension was ordered, much less, any charge sheet was filed. He submits that he got landed property and other items in the family partition and that he made acquisition few years ago through savings. The petitioner contends that all the properties possessed by him were shown in the statement of assets year after year and that value thereof was inflated indiscriminately.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondents 3 and 4.

¶18

The suspension ordered against the petitioner is on the basis of the steps initiated by Anti Corruption Bureau. It is not the case of the petitioner having been found receiving any illegal gratification. The allegation against the petitioner is that he holds assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The plea of the petitioner that the value of the properties held by him was inflated and certain other items which did not belong to him are shown, needs to be considered during the course of investigation by the concerned agency or in the other proceedings. As of now, the suspension order against the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal. One factor, however, which needs to be taken into consideration is that the investigation and trial would naturally take quite some time and it would not be in the interest of the respondent association also to continue the suspension beyond a period. The Government itself issued memos and circulars to the effect that in the matters of this nature, employer must review the situation after expiry of six months and consider as to how far it is advisable and desirable to continue the suspension. Six months time is treated as reasonable for conclusion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.

¶19

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall review the case of the petitioner on expiry of three months and shall reinstate him whether or not a charge sheet is filed by that time. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶20

___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶21

DATE: 19.08.2011 TVK

¶22

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO. 21782 OF 2011

¶24

DT.19.08.2011

S.Goverdhan Reddy, S/o S. Raji Reddy, v. The Hyderabad Agriculture Cooperative Association Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Goverdhan Reddy, S/o S. Raji Reddy, v. The Hyderabad Agriculture Cooperative Association Ltd.

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

Kinjarapu Rajeswari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

G.P. Chennaiah Vs The Secretary

Kopparapu Seetharamanjaneyulu (Died) Vs Male Krishna Reddy (died)

Smt.M.Pushpalatha, Vs Government of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Nagalla Ramanaiah Vs Nagalla Krishna

Nagalla Ramanaiah Vs Nagalla Venkata Krishna