Dismissed

Kakumani Nagaraju Achari, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC28 Feb 2012WP/5245/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of three writ petitions filed by government employees challenging their termination and recovery orders based on social audit deficiencies. The court declined to enter into disputed questions of fact, noting the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. It directed that if appeals are filed within two weeks, the appellate authority must dispose of them on merits withi

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; petitioners relegate to appellate remedy; recovery pending disposal of appeals shall not be enforced.

Kakumani Nagaraju Achari, Vs Government of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.4948, 4958 AND 5245 OF 2012

¶3

Dt:- 28.02.2012

¶4

Between:-

¶5

Gandla Vijaya Bhaskar and others

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

This Court made the following:-

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶12

WRIT PETITION Nos.4948, 4958 AND 5245 OF 2012

¶13

COMMON ORDER: -

¶14

Heard Sri Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these three writ petitions; learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Sri M.Subrahmanyam, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4; and Smt.Ch.Vedavani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

¶15

All the three writ petitions are at the instance of fixed tenure employees, who are working with respondent No.4. There were certain allegations made against the petitioners in each of these cases on the basis of social audit said to have been conducted by respondent Nos.3 and 4 under Section 17 of N.R.E.G.S. Act.

¶16

Facts in W.P.No.4948 of 2012, which are given herein, are suffice for the disposal of the three writ petitions:

¶17

On the basis of deficiencies pointed out in the social audit, petitioner was given show cause notice and a charge memo, dated

¶18

16.09.2011, requiring him to submit explanation. Petitioner has submitted the explanation on which he was given notice for personal hearing on 29.10.2011. The petitioner appeared in the said hearing and availed the opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter on the basis of material available, the impugned order, dated 30.12.2011, was passed by respondent No.4 terminating the petitioner from service and also directing recovery of the amounts from the petitioner. The said order is questioned in this writ petition on various grounds showing procedural infractions as well as on the ground that the conclusions on facts relating to the works reached against the petitioner are not based on any evidence.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the findings in the social audit as well as the findings in the impugned proceedings are contrary to the records of the respondents themselves and when the petitioners were neither the persons who made the payment nor anything is alleged against them in the oral inspections, they are now said to be responsible for the loss caused, for which there was no evidencary basis, but still the Project Director has issued orders of termination as well as the recovery.

¶20

I have considered the said submissions, but I am of the view that several factual controversies will have to be settled by investigation into the facts and material, for and against the petitioners. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not normally go into disputed questions of fact particularly when petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal against the orders impugned herein.

¶21

In these circumstances, therefore, while declining to entertain these writ petitions, the same are disposed of permitting the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal as stated in the impugned orders.

¶22

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 states that if such appeals are filed, the appellate authority would expeditiously hear and decide the appeals on merits.

¶23

In view of the said submission and keeping in view that the appellate authority is entitled to go into the procedural improprieties, as alleged, as well as on the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioners, petitioners are relegated to the said appellate remedy and if such appeals are preferred within two weeks from today, the appellate authority shall entertain the same and shall dispose of the same on merits after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioners within six weeks thereafter. Pending final disposal of the appeals, the recovery against the petitioners as per the impugned orders shall not be enforced.

¶24

The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. The miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

_____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶26

28.02.2012 Note:Issue C.C. by tomorrow. {B/o} lmv

¶27

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶28

WRIT PETITION Nos.4948, 4958 AND 5245 OF 2012

¶29

28.02.2012

¶30

lmv

Kakumani Nagaraju Achari, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kakumani Nagaraju Achari, v. Government 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

P. Jayamma, Vs The Superintending Engineer Electrical

C.G.Pratap Reddy, Vs Senior Divisional Manager

P. Laxmirajam Vs Sri Ajay Kallam, Director

B. Purushotham Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Subba Rao, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C.

Pallantla Visranthi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh