Disposed

M. Srinivasulu v. The Union of India

Telangana HC3 Dec 2011WP/31784/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Railway Protection Force Constable, challenged the inaction of the disciplinary authority in not considering his appeal against a punishment force order. The court directed the authority to dispose of the appeal on merits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 20-12-2010 filed by the petitioner against the impugned order passed by the second respondent and pass appropriate orders on merits within

M. Srinivasulu Vs The Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

SATURDAY THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 31784 OF 2011

¶6

Between: M. Srinivasulu … Petitioner V/s. The Union of India, Represented by its I.G. cum Chief Security Commissioner … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri J.M. Naidu Counsel for the Respondents : Sri J.Ashok Kumar

¶7

The Court made the following : (Order follows next page)

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 31784 OF 2011

¶10

O R D E R :

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶12

counsel for the respondents.

¶13

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the first respondent in not considering the appeal dated 20-12-2010 against the punishment force order No. 149 of 2010 (No. X/P 227/153/2009-05) dated 26-10-2010 of the second respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal dated 20-12-2010.

¶14

3. Having regard to the relief sought in the writ petition, with the

¶15

consent of both the learned counsel, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶16

4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a RPF Constable. He was appointed as RPSF Constable on 23-11-1995 and was transferred to RPF Department and on his representation posted at Bitragunta, RPF OutPost Nellore on 08-2-2007. While so, the Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, RPF Vijayawada , who is the disciplinary authority issued

¶17

charge sheet No. B/XP.227/153/2009/05 dated 11-5-2009 against the petitioner basing on the compliant lodged by his wife. It is stated that the second respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner imposed punishment of reduction of a minimum of time scale in the existing scale of pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide Force Order No. 149 of 2010 dated 26-10-2010. The charges were framed against the petitioner for violating Rule No.3 (1) (ii) of the Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent on 20-12-2010 and the same is pending on the file of the first respondent.

¶18

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent had imposed punishment of reduction of a minimum of time scale in the existing scale of pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide Force Order No. 149 of 2010 dated 26-10-2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 20-12-2010 and till date the matter has not been disposed of.

¶19

6. The learned standing counsel for the respondents would submit that the first respondent may be directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶20

7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel, taking into consideration the fact that by proceedings dated 26-10-2010 the second respondent issued proceedings of reduction of a minimum of time scale in the existing scale of pay for a period of two years with cumulative

¶21

effect vide Force Order No. 149 of 2010 dated 26-10-2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent on 20-122010. Without going into the merits of the case, the following order is passed.

¶22

Without going into the merits of the case, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal dated 20-12-2010 said to have been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 26-10-2010 in Force Order No. 149 of 2010 (No.X/P.227/153/2009-05 passed by the second respondent and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶23

-----------------------------------JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶24

03-12-2011 I s L

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO. 31784 OF 2011

¶27

CIRCULATION No.180 Date:03-11-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

M. Srinivasulu v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Srinivasulu v. The Union of India

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

P.Ramesh Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

D.Illaiah Vs The Regional Manager

Kollu Venkata Subbaiah Vs The Depot Manager

D.Ramakoteshwar Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

Smt.B.a.Appala Narasmma, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

C. Venkata Rama Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation