Remanded

Nvaduri Satyanarayana Murthy v. U Srinivasulu

Telangana HC24 Apr 2012WP/11189/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Tribunal Order No. 8775 of 2011, which disposed of a transfer appeal without granting the petitioner an opportunity to file a counter or make representations, remitting the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order stands set aside; the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after giving notice to the petitioner and the first respondent.

Nvaduri Satyanarayana Murthy Vs U Srinivasulu — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.11189 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy)

¶4

In this writ petition the order passed in O.A.No.8775 of 2011 dated 30.12.2011 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (‘Tribunal’ for brevity) is assailed.

¶5

The background facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner, i.e., the 6^th respondent in O.A, was working as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (DCTO), Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. He was transferred and posted as administrative officer, Integrated Check Post (ICP), Srikakulam, for a period of one year by proceedings dated 11.11.2011 vice the party respondent/the applicant in the O.A on administrative grounds. He was sent from ICP to the post of DCTO, Dwarakanagar. Be it stated that party respondent was transferred on the ground of involvement of in a registered criminal case. Subsequently, the criminal case was compromised.

¶6

The party respondent filed O.A.No.8775 of 2011 before the Tribunal, challenging the transfer inter alia on the ground that it was issued vindictively, contrary to the transfer norms. The OA was allowed setting aside the transfer order on the ground that no administrative grounds were made out to do so. As a result, the status quo ante was restored, aggrieved by which, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the party respondent was transferred on administrative ground in view of the pendency of the criminal charge and therefore APAT erred in allowing the O.A. He would urge apart from that the tribunal failed to consider relevant norms for effecting the transfer. According to him, the tribunal

¶8

can only interfere with the order of transfer, if the order was passed without jurisdiction; contrary to relevant rules; or passed with a malafide intention. These norms were ignored by the Tribunal. Lastly he emphatically contends that the petitioner had no adequate opportunity to represent his case.

¶9

The first respondent has made appearance before the Court having received the notice sent to him in the writ petition. There is no dispute what is claimed by the petitioner that he received the notice in the O.A, but within 30 days of receiving the notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to file his counter and make necessary representation, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the order passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner for filing necessary counter, is not tenable and is liable to be set aside.

¶10

The Writ Petition and WPMP for the above brief reasons are disposed of. The impugned order stands set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, after giving notice to the petitioner and the first respondent.

¶11

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶12

_________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶13

24^th April, 2012. DA

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶15

Writ Petition No.11189 of 2012 Date: 24.04.2012

¶16

N.Satyanarayana Murthy. … Petitioner and

¶17

U.Srinivasulu and five others. …Respondents

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.11189 OF 2012

¶20

24^th April, 2012

¶21

Nvaduri Satyanarayana Murthy v. U Srinivasulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nvaduri Satyanarayana Murthy v. U Srinivasulu

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

M/s. B.N. Rathi Securities Limited, Vs The A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission

Sri Venkateshwara Educational Society Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Zuari Industries Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Smt. K. Krishnaveni Vs Authorised OFficer

K.Kaleswara Rao Vs Canara Bank, rep.by its Authorized Officer

Dr.D.Madhavi Latha Vs Kurnool Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner