Dismissed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh. v. Pudi Srinivasa Rao

Telangana HC24 Sept 2014WP/28744/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal's order reinstating a suspended junior assistant. The Tribunal held that discriminatory reinstatement of superior officers (without charge memos) warranted reinstatement for the applicant (with a charge memo) immediately.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh. Vs Pudi… — 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.28744 OF 2014

¶4

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

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 17.6.2014, in O.A.No.5613 of 2013 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶6

2. Respondent No.1 herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to call for the records relating to, and connected with, the order of suspension, dated 21.12.2012, passed by petitioner No.4 herein and to quash or set aside the same, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to hold that he is entitled to be reinstated into service as Junior Assistant with all consequential benefits on analogy of orders issued in Memo, dated 29.11.2010, of petitioner No.1 herein.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the aforementioned Original Application and directed the petitioners herein to reinstate the applicant into service forthwith. Challenging the same, Government filed the present Writ Petition.

¶8

4. Respondent No.1/applicant was initially appointed as Attender and later on, promoted as Junior Assistant on 16.10.2007. While he was working in that cadre, he was placed under suspension on the allegation that he along with five others misappropriated post-matric scholarships for the period relating to the years 2003 to 2007. A case in Crime No.21 of 2009 was also registered by the Crime Investigation Department (C.I.D.) in connection with the said incident and he was arrested and sent to judicial custody. He was enlarged on bail by the

¶9

Criminal Court on 20.12.2012. He was shown as Accused No.6 in that crime. Pending disciplinary proceedings, accused Nos.1 to 5, who are his superior officers, were already reinstated into service, but the case of the applicant was discriminated. Hence, he filed the aforementioned Original Application and the same was allowed on the ground that accused Nos.1 to 5 were reinstated into service by the Government vide proceedings, dated 29.11.2010, because the enquiry could not be completed within three months.

¶10

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services (Andhra Pradesh) appearing for the petitioners contended that the case of accused Nos.1 to 5, who are the superior officers of respondent No.1 herein, stands on a different footing, as no charge memo was issued to them and therefore, they were reinstated into service, but in the case of respondent No.1, a charge memo was issued to him and therefore, his case cannot be equated with that of accused Nos.1 to 5 and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶11

6. It is a case of misappropriation of funds of the Government. Respondent No.1/applicant was admittedly shown as accused No.6 in the aforementioned crime registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, C.I.D. filed a charge sheet and the case is pending. All the remaining accused in the said crime were reinstated into service. There should not be any differential treatment from one person to another person when the criminal charges are one and the same. Discrimination implies an unfair classification. It involves an element of intentional and purposeful differentiation thereby, creating unfavourable bias. It does not make any difference as to whether a charge memo was issued or not. On the ground that a charge memo was issued to respondent No.1, his suspension period cannot be prolonged. On the other hand, his case stands on a better footing than accused Nos.1 to 5 in the said crime. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly

¶12

allowed the aforementioned Original Application and that order needs no interference by this Court and hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶15

JUSTICE ANIS Date: 24.9.2014 AMD

¶16

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

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.28744 OF 2014

¶18

DATE: 24.9.2014

¶19

AMD

The Government of Andhra Pradesh. v. Pudi Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh. v. Pudi Srinivasa Rao

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 Chairman, Vs K.Rajya Laxmi

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

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