Allowed

Banothu Suresh Kumar S/o. B. Ramchandra v. The State Level Police Recruitment Board

Telangana HC6 Aug 2014WP/18525/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition to quash an order deleting the petitioner from a provisional selection list. The deletion was based on a conviction for an offense under Section 323 IPC where only a fine of Rs.200/- was imposed. Relying on Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (AIR 1996 SC 3300), the Court held that such a fine does not constitute a bar to public employment and set aside the impugned o

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 22.04.2014 passed by the Tribunal; deletion from the selection list is lifted.

Banothu Suresh Kumar S/o. B. Ramchandra Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.18525 OF 2014

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to call for the records relating to the order, dated 22.04.2014, in Original Application No.6075 of 2013 with V.M.A.No.2585 of 2013 and C.A.No.2204 of 2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and quash the same.

¶6

2. It is stated by both the counsel that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by an order of this Court, dated 09.06.2014, in W.P.No.33000 of 2012.

¶7

3. In the present Writ Petition also the petitioner was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/-. The respondent authority deleted the name of the petitioner from provisional selection list solely on the ground that he was convicted by the competent Criminal Court. But, in view of a decision reported in PAWAN KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA

¶8

AND ANOTHER^[1] , if a person is sentenced to pay a fine less than Rs.2,000/-, it does not amount to conviction and it will not bar the applicants seeking public employment. In view of the above decision, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 22.04.2014, in Original Application No.6075 of 2013 with V.M.A.No.2585 of 2013 and C.A.No.2204 of 2013 passed by the

¶10

Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶11

_____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶12

______________ JUSTICE ANIS AUGUST 06, 2014 YVL

¶13

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶14

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.18525 OF 2014

¶16

Date: 06.08.2014

¶17

YVL

¶18

[1] AIR 1996 SC 3300

Banothu Suresh Kumar S/o. B. Ramchandra v. The State Level Police Recruitment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banothu Suresh Kumar S/o. B. Ramchandra v. The State Level Police Recruitment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivasakthi Traders Vs The State Bank of India

M/s. Deccan Chronicles Holdings Limited Vs The Debt Recovery Tribunal

Kambampati Purnachandra Rao, Vs State Bank of India

K.Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Appalaswamy Vs Government of Telangana

Mallidi Srinivasa Reddy Vs State Bank of India, Commercial Branch

Y. Rajesh Vs The Government of Telangana State