Dismissed

M. Rajeshwar, S/o. Bhumanna, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

Telangana HC14 Mar 2014WP/7642/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged Tribunal order and suspension, seeking reinstatement as PG Head Master. Court held enquiry completion was ordered already and granted subsistence allowance. Petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay subsistence allowance to petitioner during suspension period. Rest of petitions dismissed.

M. Rajeshwar, S/o. Bhumanna, Vs The Government of… — 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.7642 of 2014 and WRIT PETITION (SR) No.42258 of 2014

¶4

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

¶5

These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the common order dated 03-02-2014 in O.A.Nos.9229 and 7871 of 2013 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and to set aside the same and also the suspension order dated 06-10-2010 vide proceedings Rc.No.3724/A1/ 2010 and the rejection order dated 26-11-2013 vide proceedings Rc.No.7871/A2/2010/A1 passed by the third respondent by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as PG Head Master grade-II, with all consequential benefits.

¶6

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5.

¶7

3. The petitioner herein filed O.A.Nos.9229 and 7871 of 2013 praying the Tribunal to declare the action of the respondents in not reviewing the suspension orders passed by the third respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.3724/A1/ 2010, dated 06-10-2010 and not reinstating him as PG Head Master Grade-II even though three years elapsed from the date of passing of the suspension order as illegal and arbitrary. The said O.As. were disposed of directing the respondents herein to complete the enquiry initiated against the

¶8

petitioner herein vide charge memo dated 12-10-2010 and 22-122011 and pass final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of that order. Hence, the writ petition.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though more than two years has been elapsed after issuance of charge memo his suspension has not been revoked and the suspension has been revoked in terms of G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 19-08-2008 and hence, he prays to admit the writ petition.

¶10

5. No doubt, there was a delay in completing the enquiry. Even as per G.O.Ms.No.525, dated 19-08-2008 the suspension of the employee can be continued beyond two years shall be reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary case against him. However, in exceptional cases for example, where the charged officer is not co-operating for completion of inquiry. It is submitted by the petitioner herein in the affidavit filed in support of O.As. that the fourth respondent directed him to attend for enquiry on 24-05-2012 and accordingly he attended the enquiry. Thereafter he has not received any intimation with regard to further enquiry.

¶11

6. Considering the fact that the Tribunal itself directed the respondents herein to complete the enquiry within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of that order, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the same.

¶12

7. But, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during the suspension period he has not paid the subsisting allowance. Payment of subsistence allowance is a matter of right. Therefore, the respondents herein are directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner herein during the suspension period.

¶13

8. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶15

______________________

JUSTICE ANIS

March 14, 2014

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

¶20

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.7642 of 2014 and WRIT PETITION (SR) No.42258 of 2014

¶22

March 14, 2014

¶23

M. Rajeshwar, S/o. Bhumanna, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Rajeshwar, S/o. Bhumanna, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

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

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs B.Adinarayana

Dr. T.G.K.Murthy, Vs Union of India

The commissioner of Backward classes,Andhra Pradesh Vs B.Ravi Chandra

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

E. Aswathama, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs K. Srinivasa Raju