Disposed

Mrs.Haripuri Uma Rani, W/o.D.Srinivas v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Telangana HC23 Sept 2013WP/22781/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed that if any promotion to Superintendent takes place, this petitioner's file be considered and the result kept in a sealed cover. It also ordered the trial court in Nampally to dispose of the pending criminal case within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the court to consider the petitioner's promotion case with results in a sealed cover and ordering the trial court to dispose of the criminal case within three months.

Mrs.Haripuri Uma Rani, W/o.D.Srinivas Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

W.P.No.22781 of 2013

¶3

ORDER: (Per LNR,J)

¶4

The petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her, alleging that while submitting an application for sanction of loan, certain forged certificates inflating her emoluments were filed. Those proceedings entailed in imposition of minor punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect vide order, dated 26.05.2011. The appellate authority modified the same to the one of without cumulative effect, through proceedings, dated 19.12.2012. By 26.05.2013, the period of punishment has expired. The petitioner filed O.A.No.5357 of 2013 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider her case for promotion to the post of Superintendent. However, on taking note of the fact that the petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No.362 of 2003 in the Court of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, the Tribunal expressed its inability to grant any interim relief, vide its order, dated 17.07.2013. Hence, this writ petition.

¶5

Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II. The petitioner is no doubt otherwise entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent. However, the pendency of the criminal case is standing in

¶6

her way. It is only after the criminal case is disposed of, that the respondents can consider her promotion. For one reason or the other, the criminal case is pending for the past one decade. By any standard, such a long pendency cannot be countenanced. Further, in case, any promotions take place for the post of Superintendent, the case of the petitioner can also be considered and the result thereof can be kept in a sealed cover.

¶7

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that(a) in case any promotions to the post of

¶8

Superintendent in the office of the 1^st respondent take place, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered. The result thereof insofar as it relates to the petitioner, shall be kept in a sealed cover;

¶9

(b)

¶10

the Court of XXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally shall dispose of the C.C., if necessary by separating it in respect of any accused, against whom NBWs are pending, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. For this purpose, it shall be open to the petitioner to place a copy of this order before the concerned Court. The Registry shall also mark a copy of this order to that Court;

¶11

(c) in case, the petitioner is acquitted in C.C.No.362 of 2003, the sealed cover, if any prepared in respect of the petitioner shall be opened and further steps shall be taken depending on the result noted therein. If on the other hand, no such process has taken place, the petitioner shall be considered for

¶12

promotion along with other eligible candidates; and

¶13

(d) since virtually nothing remains in the O.A., we direct that it shall stand disposed of in terms of this order.

¶14

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶16

_______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶17

Date: 23.09.2013 JSU

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶19

W.P.No.22781 of 2013

¶20

Date: 23.09.2013

¶21

JSU

Mrs.Haripuri Uma Rani, W/o.D.Srinivas v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Haripuri Uma Rani, W/o.D.Srinivas v. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

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. Lakhani Steel Industries Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise

A.Ravinder Reddy Vs Government of a.P., rep by its Prinicpal Secretary

Dr. B. Vidya Sagar Vs Dr. P. Venkateshwarlu

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Vs K. Shyam Sunder

Ravi Rama rao Vs The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City

Dr. v. Varalakshamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by