Dismissed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. R.Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Bhagvan Das

Telangana HC19 Mar 2014WP/3488/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court upheld the Administrative Tribunal's order setting aside the petitioner's suspension despite pending departmental proceedings. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner but barred his posting to the 9th Battalion.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of Writ Petition, reinvestment order, and specific direction prohibiting posting to the 9th Battalion.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs… — 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.3488 OF 2014

¶4

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

¶5

Challenging the order, dated 14.11.2013, in Original Application No.6373 of 2013 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶6

2. Respondent No.1 herein filed the aforementioned Original Application questioning the Memo in Rc.No.A3/1234/2013, dated 22.08.2013, issued by the 3^rd petitioner herein in placing him under suspension. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, set aside the Memo, dated 22.08.2013, and directed the petitioners herein to reinstate him into service within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. However, liberty was given to the petitioners herein to proceed with disciplinary proceedings, if any, contemplated against respondent No.1.

¶7

3. It is not in dispute before this Court that by virtue of the impugned Memo, dated 22.08.2013, respondent No.1 was placed under suspension on the ground that he is not regularly visiting the posts to supervise, allowing unauthorized permission to the Police Constables and Head Constables, allowing and maintaining depleted strength at the posts and sending wrong post strength particulars in his reports.

¶8

4. On the ground that suspension period was more than two months, no charge memo was issued till date and it was not known how much time it is likely to take to issue charge memo to proceed with the enquiry, the suspension order was set aside.

¶9

5. According to the Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the petitioners, the charge memo was issued on 16.09.2013 but the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. It is the case of respondent No.1 that in P.S.Chaitanyapuri platoon 22 personnel were present and at Pet Basheerabad Police Station 13 were present and in each Section 7 members have to be present 15 personnel were present at Pet Basheerabad and 2 persons were issued passport, one was sent to company Headquarters for collecting his travelling allowance for the duties rendered by him in Panchayat elections and another person was sent to collect Mess charges; three sections at Jeedimetla Police Station, 22 personnel have to be present but 16 were present and 8 persons were deployed from 9^th Battalion to Jeedimetla P.S. and that there was no negligence on the part of respondent No.1 in discharging his duties and proper maintenance of strength at Platoons as per the instructions of the superiors.

¶10

6. These aspects, which have been raised by respondent No.1, have to be decided during the course of departmental enquiry. The Tribunal, after recording reasons, rightly set aside the suspension order. There is no error of law or fact apparent on the face of the record so as to call for interference of the impugned judgment. We do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the petitioners, stated that if respondent No.1 is posted in 9^th Battalion, there is every likelihood of tampering of records. Considering this aspect, we direct the petitioners to post respondent No.1 to any Battalion except the 9^th Battalion after his reinstatement.

¶11

7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶13

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶14

MARCH 19, 2014 YVL

¶15

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

¶16

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.3488 OF 2014

¶18

DATE:19.03.2014

¶19

YVL

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. R.Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Bhagvan Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. R.Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Bhagvan Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Prasad Babu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Government of a.P., Vs P.Venkateswarlu

E. Aswathama, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Muddapati Ravi

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Dr.B.Satyanarayana Raju

The Director General Department Vs Sri. T. Venkatesu S/o T. Somaiah