Disposed

The Chief Manager (Pandd), v. T.Mallesham,. S/o.vittal

Telangana HC24 Feb 2014WA/193/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ appeal (W.A. No. 193 of 2014) against an order granting stay in a writ petition concerning a departmental enquiry. The Court declined to entertain the appeal because the merits of the case required consideration of cited Supreme Court judgments in the main petition, directing the appellant to file a separate petition to vacate the stay. The appeal and pending m

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal and pending Miscellaneous Petitions disposed of as infructuous.

The Chief Manager (Pandd), Vs T.Mallesham… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH &

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

W.A. No. 193 of 2014

¶4

DATE: 24.02.2014

¶5

Between:

¶6

The Chief Manager (P&D), Andhra Bank and four others .. Appellants

¶7

And

¶8

T.Mallesham .. Respondent

¶9

JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)

¶10

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.2013 in W.P.M.P. No. 43911 of 2013 in W.P.No. 35334 of 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge granting stay of departmental enquiry initiated against the writ petitioner – employee vide Charge Memo dated 25.09.2012.

¶11

The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge, while granting stay of departmental enquiry, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Capt. M.Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anothe r^[1] , which was referred and explained in another judgment reported in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry^[2] , but the aspect of departmental enquiry was not dealt with nor distinguished in the impugned order.

¶12

We have perused the order under challenge wherein it is merely recorded that as the counter affidavit has been filed, the matter itself can be disposed of finally and the matter was directed to be listed on 30.01.2014 under the caption “for Orders”.

¶13

The learned counsel for both the parties submit that for some reason or the other, the matter could not be disposed of. Inasmuch as the merits of the matter and distinguishing factors have to be considered and decided in the main writ petition in the light of the above cited two judgments in relation to the facts of the present case, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this writ appeal. However, the learned counsel for the appellants is at liberty to move Vacate Stay Petition before the learned Single Judge against the impugned order as may be available to him under law setting out both facts and law, and on such vacate stay petition being filed, the learned Judge may consider and dispose of the same without regard to the observations made in the order passed in W.P.M.P.No. 43911 of 2013

¶14

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel to the disposal of the writ appeal, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

_________________

¶17

G. CHANDRAIAH, J 24.02.2014

¶18

______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J

¶19

bcj

¶20

[1] (1999) 3 SCC 679

¶21

[2] (2005) 10 SCC 471

The Chief Manager (Pandd), v. T.Mallesham,. S/o.vittal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Manager (Pandd), v. T.Mallesham,. S/o.vittal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Bhadratha, Vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I

The A.P. Paper Mills Limited, Rajahmundry, Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise

The A.P. Paper Mills Kimited, Rajahmundry, Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise

Commissioner of Income Tax Ap Hyd Vs Dr Evita Fernandez

Ivrcl - Kbl (Jv) Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise

M/S Ap State Financial Corporation Hyd Vs Commissoiner of Income Tax Ap Hyd