Disposed

K.Mahendar, v. The Project Director and Joint Secretary

Telangana HC19 Dec 2011WP/33411/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court considered writ petitions by Fixed Tenure Employees challenging their temporary suspension from contract work pending a disciplinary enquiry. The court held that suspension is not a penalty and does not violate natural justice. The petitions were disposed of with a direction to complete the enquiry within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of with direction to complete enquiry within two months from date of receipt of order; no order on costs.

K.Mahendar, Vs The Project Director and Joint… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION Nos. 33404, 33407, 33411 and 33416 of 2011

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶4

Since the cause of action in all these writ petitions arises out of the same proceedings, the writ petitions are taken up together for disposal by this common order.

¶5

The brief facts of the writ petitions are:-

¶6

The petitioners are appointed as Fixed Tenure Employees (FTE) as Engineering Consultant by Society for Rural Development Service (SRDS) on contract basis for a period of one year from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 . The petitioners are rendering service to the respondents as per the contract under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS), for the proposals of works by Mandal Parishad Development Office (MPDO), Kothaguda Mandal. It is alleged that the petitioners have committed irregularities while performing their duties. By Proceedings No.TSC/WGL/00086 dated 25.10.2011, temporary suspension of contract order was issued and on the same day, by proceedings No.SCN/WGL/00086 dated 25.10.2011, show cause notice to the petitioners was issued, contemplating disciplinary action against the petitioners. The petitioners submitted explanation to the

¶7

show cause notice, on 04.11.2011, and the same is pending before the respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the order of temporary suspension of the contract work, the petitioners filed these writ petitions.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have issued the show cause notice and called for written explanation within seven days, and on the same date of the show cause, the respondents have also issued suspension notice temporarily suspending the contract employment of the petitioners. Though the petitioners have submitted written explanation, placing the petitioners under suspension is in violation of principles of natural justice, and hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioners are alleged to have indulged in irregularities in the course of their contract employment, the impugned proceedings have been issued temporarily suspending their contract, and the show cause notice have been issued calling for their written explanation, pending enquiry.

¶10

Admittedly, the petitioners are working in contract employment under the respondents and on the allegations that they have indulged in irregularities during the course of their contract employment, a show cause notice has been issued calling for written explanation and also, a notice has been issued temporarily suspending

¶11

their contract work, pending enquiry. The petitioners have submitted their written explanation to the show cause notice. However, suspension from work, pending enquiry into the allegations of irregularities in work, is not a penalty and the same cannot be said to be violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the respondents have committed no irregularity by initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners to enquire into the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage. However, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

With the above direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

_________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶14

19^th December, 2011

¶15

KSM

K.Mahendar, v. The Project Director and Joint Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mahendar, v. The Project Director and Joint Secretary

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

D.v.v.Prasad, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Samuel Morris Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Kotla Madhusudhan Vs The Chief General Manager

Payam Ramarao Vs The Project Director and Joint Secretary, Srds

T. Pullaiah Vs The Member Secretary / Commissioner

V.Nageswar Rao Vs The Member Secretary / Commissioner