Dismissed

Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by v. Dr. P.Bhaskar Rao, Medical Officer

Telangana HC5 Mar 2014WP/2864/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an Administrative Tribunal order. The Tribunal had set aside a termination for unauthorized absence because an enquiry was not conducted. The Court held the Tribunal was correct and no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; respondents permitted to initiate disciplinary action in accordance with Rules 20 and 21 of the Rules.

Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by Vs Dr… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.2864 OF 2004

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 8.4.2003, in O.A.No.8157 of 2001 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and quash the same.

¶6

2. The petitioners herein are respondents, and the respondent herein is the applicant, in the Original Application. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter, referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶7

3. The applicant was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon in the year 1995. For the unauthorized absence of the applicant, a show cause notice, dated 18.11.2000, was issued by respondent No.1 directing the applicant to give explanation for his unauthorized absence, as mentioned in the show cause notice. Thereafter, without conducting any enquiry, respondent No.1 issued the termination order, dated 22.12.2000, to the applicant. That order was challenged before the Tribunal.

¶8

4. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, held that without conducting an enquiry, imposition of major punishment is not permissible under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, “the Rules”) and accordingly, allowed the Original Application setting aside the order of termination. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the respondents.

¶9

5. The Tribunal rightly set aside the termination order of the applicant holding that the respondents did not follow the procedure under relevant statutory Rules. That order needs no interference by this Court because no illegal or incorrect finding has been given by the Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from initiating disciplinary action strictly in accordance with Rules 20 and 21 of the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶11

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶12

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 05.03.2014 AMD

¶13

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

¶14

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.2864 OF 2004

¶16

DATE: 05.03.2014

¶17

AMD

Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by v. Dr. P.Bhaskar Rao, Medical Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by v. Dr. P.Bhaskar Rao, Medical Officer

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

Y.s. Prasad, Joint Commissioner of Labour Vs Commissioner of Labour, State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhukya Dharma , Dharmiya, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Vs C.Renuka

Government of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary to Vs Dr.K.Pushpa, Civil Asst.Surgeon

The Union of India, Vs T. Seshachalapathi

State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Dy. Y.V. Narasimha Rao