Disposed

Shaik Irfan, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the

Telangana HC16 Jun 2014WP/15286/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to conclude the pending disciplinary enquiry within eight weeks of receipt of the order, emphasizing delay of over two years, leaving final claims on arrears to be pursued after enquiry closure.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conclude enquiry within eight weeks; no order on costs.

Shaik Irfan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15286 OF 2014

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, apart from perusing the record.

¶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 was initially appointed on 16.08.2011 as Technical Assistant of Grade-I in the 2^nd respondent Corporation. After the initial training, he was posted as in-charge of Mandal level Stockist (MLS) Point, Adilabad. In course of time, the petitioner was placed under suspension through proceedings dated 15.11.2012 on the allegation that the petitioner committed certain irregularities while discharging his duty at the MLS Point. It appears that later, in course of time, pending enquiry, acting on the representation of the petitioner, the respondent authorities reinstated him into service on 20.08.2013.

¶7

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that between 15.11.2012 and 20.08.2013, the petitioner was not paid any salary and, that apart his two annual increments have also been withheld.

¶8

5. According to the learned counsel, the enquiry has already been completed by the 3^rd respondent, who initially was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and, though he submitted his report on 20.08.2013, to this day, the proceedings have not attained

¶9

finality. Accordingly, the learned counsel has urged this court to issue a suitable direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the arrears of nine months salary, apart from restoring two annual increments.

¶10

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, has submitted that the enquiry was not completed, but the petitioner was reinstated on 20.08.2013 based on the representation submitted by him. The learned Standing Counsel has also further contested the statement of the petitioner that the enquiry was completed and the 3^rd respondent, as Enquiry Officer, submitted his report. In conclusion, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the respondent corporation will make every effort to see that the enquiry is completed as expeditiously as possible and appropriate orders are passed thereon.

¶11

7. Without adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition, in the interest of justice, with a direction to the respondent authorities to conclude the enquiry proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, more particularly in the face of the fact that enquiry proceedings were initiated about two years ago, and pass appropriate orders thereon within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

It is made clear that once the disciplinary proceedings come to an end and final orders are passed, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps thereon, if he is otherwise aggrieved.

¶13

7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶14

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition

¶15

shall stand closed.

¶16

____________________________________

¶17

JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU Date:16.06.2014 INL

Shaik Irfan, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Irfan, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the

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

Murla Dhana Raju, Vs The Chief Executive Officer

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