Allowed

M.C. Narsimhulu v. The District Collector

Telangana HC3 Dec 2012WP/27265/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging termination order from District Collector for violating natural justice. Court held order passed without notice violates rule of audi alteram partem, set it aside and remitted matter for fresh disposal after hearing petitioner and third respondent within one month.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to dispose of the matter afresh within one month after giving notice and opportunity to the petitione

M.C. Narsimhulu Vs The District Collector — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27265 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri P.Ananth Nageswar Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S.S.Viswanetra Ravi, the learned counsel for third respondent, and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

¶5

2. The petitioner was appointed as Mandal Coordinator by the second respondent by his proceedings No.542/2010/A, dated 01.08.2010. Subsequently the first respondent, who happens to be the District Collector and Vice-Chairman of Lok Siksha Samithi, Anantapur, by his order dated 14.10.2010 terminated the services of the petitioner for the reasons recorded therein. It is that order which is now challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶6

3. The first respondent has recorded many reasons in the impugned order, but it is seen that though the matter was taken up on the representation of the third respondent on the grounds mentioned by him, no notice was given to the petitioner about the action that was proposed before passing the impugned order and it is seen that the petitioner was not heard.

¶7

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied upon the violation of the rule of Audi Alteram Partem which is noticed in this case and further he also presented the case of the petitioner on merits. Equally, the learned counsel for the third respondent also tried to support the impugned order. However, having regard to the fact that all these aspects have to be decided by the first respondent and since the impugned order has been passed without

¶8

notice to the petitioner, I am of the opinion that it should be set aside and the matter should be remitted back to the first respondent for disposal afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and also the third respondent.

¶9

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms and the first respondent shall take all the steps to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶10

N. RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶11

3^rd December, 2012 TJMR

M.C. Narsimhulu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C. Narsimhulu v. The District Collector

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

M/s. Sri Sai Raghavendra Cold Storage (P) Ltd., Vs The Employment Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal

Bijjala Chinna Balreddy Vs Bijjala Chinna Subba Reddy (died)

Bijjala Tulasi Reddy, Vs Bijjala China Bali Reddy

Shaik Hassan Ahmmad S/o Nagpal Meera Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

P.v.Narayana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T.R. Krishna, Vs The Depot Manager