Allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. N. Narendra Kumar

Telangana HC15 Sept 2014WP/31816/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the Tribunal's finding that a dropped charge memo would extinguish the need for enquiry. With mutual consent, the Court directed the Government to conduct and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within three months from the date of the order.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal's finding of a deemed dropped charge memo was set aside;petitioners directed to conclude disciplinary proceedings within three months.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs N. Narendra… — 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.31816 OF 2010

¶4

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

¶5

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 21.7.2010, in O.A.No.4405 of 2010 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 declare the action of the petitioners herein in not completing/concluding the disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated in charge memo No.22309/CPR/B1/99, dated 12.7.2000, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the petitioners herein to complete the said disciplinary proceedings within a period of two months and with a further direction that in failure of the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings within the said stipulated period, to declare that the charge memo is dropped.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the aforementioned Original Application directing the petitioners herein to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge memo, dated 12.7.2000, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The Tribunal further held that respondent No.1/applicant shall cooperate with the enquiry proceedings and in the event, the petitioners herein do not conduct and conclude the proceedings within the stipulated period, the charge memo, dated 12.7.2000, shall be deemed to have been dropped. Challenging the same, Government filed the present Writ Petition.

¶8

4. Heard both sides.

¶9

5. While allowing the aforementioned Original Application, the Tribunal held that in the event, the petitioners herein could not conduct and conclude the disciplinary proceedings, charge memo, dated 12.7.2000, shall be deemed to have been dropped. If the charge memo is deemed to have been dropped, then the question of conducting and concluding the enquiry does not arise. Therefore, the said finding of the Tribunal is perverse and the said finding is set aside. Since the time granted by the Tribunal has been expired, with the consent of both the parties, we direct the petitioners herein to conduct and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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: 15.9.2014 AMD

¶13

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

¶14

WRIT PETITION No.31816 OF 2010

¶15

DATE: 15.9.2014

¶16

AMD

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. N. Narendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. N. Narendra Kumar

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

Pinnamaneni Anitha Krishna Rao Vs The Government of India

P. Koteswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

V.Ranga Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

The District Educational Officer, Vs Smt. S.Padmavathi

B. Suresh Babu Vs Commissioner of Industries of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Idea Cellular Limited Vs Hail Mohan