Dismissed

Dy. Inspector General of Police, v. Smt. Ch. Nagamamba

Telangana HC24 Sept 2014WP/24639/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a writ petition challenging an Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's directive to remand a disciplinary enquiry to the disciplinary authority due to lack of fair opportunity and improper service of notices on a sick respondent.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ petition stood closed.

Dy. Inspector General of Police, Vs Smt. Ch… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24639 OF 2003

¶3

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

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 25.6.2002, in O.A.No.3669 of 1994 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶5

2. Respondent herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to declare the order, dated 25.4.1994, of petitioner No.1 herein confirming the order, dated 1.10.1992, of petitioner No.2 herein as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to set aside the same, and order for her reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits thereon.

¶6

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, held that there is no alternative except to remit back the case to petitioner No.2 herein to provide another opportunity to the respondent/applicant to defend herself and accordingly, disposed of the aforementioned Original Application directing the petitioners herein to get the enquiry held in accordance with Rules 20 and 21 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and that exercise to be completed within six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Further, the Tribunal set aside the orders, dated 1.10.1992 and 25.4.1994, passed by the petitioners herein and ordered that the status of the respondent herein/applicant shall remain as it was prior to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against her.

¶7

4. Heard both sides.

¶8

5. On the ground that enquiry was conducted behind the back of the respondent/applicant, the aforementioned Original Application was disposed of giving direction to the petitioners herein as mentioned supra. The respondent was suffering from serious ailments at that relevant point of time. Further, she underwent operation at Hyderabad. She was bedridden and was undergoing treatment as inpatient at Hyderabad. The Enquiry Officer got affixed two notices, dated 17.7.1992 and 24.7.1992, to her residential locked door at Khammam wherein it was stated that he was visiting her house both on 17.7.1992 and 24.7.1992 and would conduct enquiry at her house itself. When the respondent/applicant was taking treatment at Hyderabad, affixing notices to her residential house at Khammam cannot be treated as sufficient service on her. A fair opportunity was not given to the respondent. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal rightly remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to conduct enquiry afresh. So, that order needs no interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

7. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

JUSTICE K.C.BHANU _______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 24.9.2014 AMD

¶12

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

¶13

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.24639 OF 2003

¶15

DATE: 24.9.2014

¶16

AMD

Dy. Inspector General of Police, v. Smt. Ch. Nagamamba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dy. Inspector General of Police, v. Smt. Ch. Nagamamba

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

A.v.Rizwan Rasheed Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal

Kakollu Suresh Babu Vs Indian Bank .

Smt. Kalavacharla Venkata Jagadeswari Vs The General Manager, State Bank of India

The Government of Andhra Pradesh. Vs Pudi Srinivasa Rao

The Chairman, Vs K.Rajya Laxmi

The Superintendent of Post Offices Srikakulam Division, Vs Vysyaraju Vanajakshmma, W/o.Laxmana Raju