Allowed

B.Chandrasekhar, v. The Government of a,P., Rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC16 Jun 2014WP/15224/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition challenging suspension of a petitioner due to criminal conviction. The court disposed of the petition at the admission stage by granting liberty to file a representation for suspension revocation before retirement.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to make representation for revocation of suspension; authorities directed to dispose by superannuation date.

B.Chandrasekhar, Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15224 OF 2014

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

¶5

2. Since the issue involved in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass, this writ petition is disposed of at the very admission stage.

¶6

3. Shorn of extraneous particulars, the facts in brief are that the petitioner, an Office Subordinate working in the 3^rd respondent Hospital, faced certain criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.C.No.44 of 2007 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupathi. The said criminal proceedings however ended in acquittal through judgment dated 21.06.2011. The record reveals that the complainant, aggrieved by the acquittal of the petitioner, took carried the matter in appeal in Crl.A.No.185 of 2011 on the file of the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, who through judgment, dated 18.10.2013, reversed the findings of the trial Court and convicted the petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.

¶7

3. The record further reveals that aggrieved by the reversal of the findings by the appellate Court, the petitioner further carried the matter in revision before this Court and got the judgment of conviction suspended through order, dated 21.10.2013.

¶8

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the suspension of sentence by this Court in revision, for an alleged offence, which is entirely unconnected with the discharge of the official duties, the 2^nd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension, which according to him, is totally unsustainable.

¶9

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on certain judicial pronouncements, has strenuously contended that the petitioner ought to be reinstated after setting aside the order of suspension, dated 05.05.2014. The learned counsel has stated that the petitioner is due to retire by 30.06.2014.

¶10

6. The learned Standing Counsel on his part has submitted that the petitioner suffered incarceration for more than 48 hours, and as such, it is imperative on the part of the 2^nd respondent to place the petitioner under suspension. He has also contended that it is only suspension of sentence but not that of conviction. Underlying the scope and ambit of disciplinary proceedings concerning the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that it is entirely within the discretion of the 2^nd respondent after taking into account the totality of the circumstances, to decide whether the petitioner shall be continued under suspension or the suspension should be revoked at any appropriate time.

¶11

7. With a specific query is put to learned counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner has made any representation to the authorities concerned to revoke the suspension, the learned counsel has replied in the negative.

¶12

8. Under those circumstances, without adverting to the merits of the matter, the petitioner is given liberty to make a

¶13

representation to the 2^nd respondent authorities to consider his case for revocation of suspension. Once such application is made, the respondent authorities shall consider his representation and dispose it of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before the date of his superannuation.

¶14

9. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶15

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶16

___________________________________ JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU Date:16.06.2014 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. (B/o.) INL

B.Chandrasekhar, v. The Government of a,P., Rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Chandrasekhar, v. The Government of a,P., Rep by its Principal Secretary

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

D. Raja Reddy, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

K. Yakoob, Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

K. Kameshwar Rao Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh

Kolluri Narayana, Vs Prasanna Simha

Shaik Irfan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the

Murla Dhana Raju, Vs The Chief Executive Officer