This court allowed a Writ Petition seeking to set aside arbitrary suspension proceedings. The single-judge bench concluded that the respondent lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of specific reasons for the suspension and set aside the impugned order.
The impugned proceedings dated 6.2.2014 are set aside; the Writ Petition is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
W.P.No.29432 of 2014
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the proceedings dated 1.8.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as a Field Assistant under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, at Thirumalam Palem Gram Panchayat, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District.
The petitioner was appointed on 17.12.2007 as a Field Assistant under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, a t Thirumalam Palem Gram Panchayat, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, West Godavari District and since then, he has been discharging his duties in the said post.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without any basis and jurisdiction, the 2nd respondent issued the proceedings impugned
placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that he was allegedly indulged in irregularities of entering binami musters though the coolies did not attend the work. He further submitted that the petitioner has no means of livelihood and that the impugned proceedings are bereft of any reasons and therefore, they are liable to be set aside.
Obviously, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension. No specific reasons have been stated in the impugned proceedings for placing the petitioner under suspension.
In that view of the matter, the impugned proceedings dated 6.2.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent are set aside.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J
15th December, 2014 rkk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second respondent had jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension without stating specific reasons.
Petitioner (Field Assistant)
2nd Respondent (Authority issuing suspension order)
R.KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
