Allowed

B.Narayanaiah, Driver, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC10 Dec 2014WP/36399/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the petitioner should not have been suspended for playing cards. It directed the revocation of the suspension order and completion of the departmental enquiry within two months, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The suspension order dated 21.11.2014 was revoked; the departmental enquiry must be concluded within two months.

B.Narayanaiah, Driver, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.36399 OF 2014

Date:10.12.2014

Between:

B.Narayanaiah

…Petitioner

And

A.P.S.R.T.C. rep. by its VC & MD, Hyderabad and another

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.36399 OF 2014

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for mandamus seeking a direction to declare the action of the respondents herein in issuing the charge sheet dated 21.11.2014 and keeping the petitioner under suspension by order No.01/114(1)/2014Udayagiri, dated 21.11.2014 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the APSRTC (CC & A) Regulations and to set aside the same and further direct the second respondent to revoke the suspension order dated 21.11.2014 with all consequential benefits.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶14

It is alleged against the petitioner that he was playing cards with others during rest time. On the said allegation, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge sheet was also issued to him.

¶15

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of charge, I am of the considered view that the respondents ought not to have placed the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to revoke the suspension order, dated 21.11.2014 passed against the petitioner. The respondents are further directed to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and conclude the same by passing final orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶18

________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J

¶19

Date:10.12.2014 Note: Furnish C.C. by 12.12.14. B/O Ccm

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.36399 OF 2014

¶22

Date:10.12.2014

B.Narayanaiah, Driver, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Narayanaiah, Driver, v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

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

V.B. Chary, Vs Apsrtc

Venkata Siva Prasad, Vs Chaitanya Grameena Bank

K.v.Lakshmana Charyulu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its

Merugu Kanakalaxmi , Kanakamma, W/o. M. Rayamallu Vs Chaiman and Managing Director

Sk. Jahangir Basha sio Kalesha, aged about 37 years, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M.V. Sagar, Vs Apsrtc