Allowed

C.H.Y.V.K.S.S.V. Maheswara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC24 Nov 2011WP/30846/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged removal from service as Field Assistant. Court held the 6th respondent lacked jurisdiction; competent authority is Additional District Programme Officer. Writ allowed to set aside impugned order; liberty granted to proceed against petitioner before competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.7.2010 set aside; liberty granted to proceed against petitioner before competent authority.

C.H.Y.V.K.S.S.V. Maheswara Rao Vs Govt. of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO:30846 OF 2011

¶3

DATE:24.11.2011

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

C.H.Y.V.K.S.S.V.MAHESWARARAO

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

GOVT. OF A.P REP BY ITS SECRETARY & OTHERS

¶9

…RESPONDENTS.

¶10

THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO:30846 OF 2011

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the orders of the 6^th respondent in Rc.No:05/10/MGS REGS-AP, dated 16.7.2010 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Field Assistant for the village of Kotham, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District on a monthly salary of Rs.2,200/- and he has been discharging his duties without any blemish and while so, basing on the audit report

¶17

dated 12.6.2010, the 6^th respondent issued a notice to him alleging misappropriation of funds, for which, he submitted his explanation. But, without considering his explanation, the 6^th respondent issued notice in Rc.No:05/10/MGS REGS-AP, dated 16.7.2010 removing him from service as Field Assistant.

¶18

At this stage, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that it is the only Additional District Programme Officer cum Project Director, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme-4^th who is the competent authority to pass the order of this nature, which is impugned in the writ petition and therefore, the 6^th respondent has no jurisdiction to pass such orders and therefore, while setting aside the order impugned, liberty may be given to proceed against the petitioner.

¶19

In view of the fact that the 6^th respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the order impugned, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned.

¶20

However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude the authorities to proceed against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶21

Justice G.Chandraiah

¶22

Gurc. Date:24.11.2011

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO:30846 OF 2011

¶25

DATE:24.11.2011

C.H.Y.V.K.S.S.V. Maheswara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.H.Y.V.K.S.S.V. Maheswara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Rajeswari Vs Sri Venkateswara University

B.Ravi Vs Sri Md. Rashid, The Deputy Director Tribal Welfare

A. Satya Sai Lakshmi Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd.Osman Vs Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad

M/s. Ramani Hotels Limited Vs The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

Ch. Sailoo Vs The Managing Director, Apsrtc