Remanded

G. Yesudas, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC11 Dec 2014WP/38221/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition filed seeking declaration of termination illegal and reinstatement. Due to pending criminal case and appeal, the High Court directed the respondent to reconsider petitioner's explanation and dispose of the appeal within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's explanation and dispose of the pending appeal within two months.

G. Yesudas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.38221 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for R1 and R2 and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for R 3 - S r i Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam.

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 3^rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 9.11.2013, as arbitrary and illegal and to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

¶6

The petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper in the 3^rd respondent-Devasthanam. On the allegation of commission of theft of Rs.4,000/- while counting the hundi amount, a charge memo dated 4.6.2013 was issued to the petitioner, for which he submitted his explanation stating that he being an illiterate, does not know how to count the amount and that the charge was framed against him falsely though he did not commit any theft. But, without considering the

¶7

explanation submitted by the petitioner, enquiry was conducted and subsequently, he was removed from service. Based on the report lodged by the 3^rd respondent, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 381 IPC and the same is pending. Aggrieved by the removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent and the same is also pending.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has fair chance of success in the appeal, but so far no orders have been passed thereon.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the appeal, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶11

_________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J

¶12

11^th December, 2014 rkk

G. Yesudas, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Yesudas, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

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

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

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

Y.a.Ready, Vs a.P.State Road Transport Corporation

D. Sanjeeva Rao Vs The Executive Engineer Rajendranagar Circle -Vi

Smt Arati Jadhav, D/o Rajendra Jadhav, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented