Dismissed

M.Satyanarayana S/o M.Apparao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Dec 2015WP/40150/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging suspension and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a suspended Field Assistant dismissed. The court held suspension was legal and refused reinstatement due to lack of policy provision for such automatic reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Directing the authorities to finalize the disciplinary action within one month, with automatic reinstatement if not concluded.

M.Satyanarayana S/o M.Apparao Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

¶3

Present

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.40150 of 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

M. Satyanarayana, S/o. M. Apparao, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Field Assistant (under suspension), O/o. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kotananduru Mandal, East Godavari District, R/o. D.No.4-34, Komatam Mallavaram Village, Kotananduru Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj & Rural Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others

¶11

.. Respondents

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.40150 of 2015

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

The petitioner is a Field Assistant. On the allegations as a Field Assistant, disciplinary action was initiated against him and pending disciplinary action, his services were also placed under suspension on 04.09.2015. Allegations were communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner filed explanation on 21.10.2015. Alleging that on illegal grounds the petitioner was placed under suspension, this writ petition is filed.

¶16

2. As seen from the order impugned in the writ petition, disciplinary action is initiated against the petitioner on several allegations and pending enquiry into the said allegations, the petitioner is placed under suspension. The order of suspension is passed by the competent authority. Once disciplinary action is initiated and enquiry is pending, it is permissible for the competent authority to place the concerned employee under suspension and I, therefore, do not see any illegality in the order passed. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 30 days time is prescribed in the Human Resources Policy for completion of the disciplinary proceedings and since 30 days is already expired, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated. There is no merit in the said contention. The Human Resources Policy do

¶18

not provide for reinstatement if enquiry is not completed.

¶19

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, since the explanation is already filed by the petitioner, the Project Director and Additional District Programme Coordinator, DWMA, East Godavari District, Kakinada (3^rd respondent) is directed to finalize the disciplinary action, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the petitioner shall stand reinstated. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶20

____________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶21

Date: 11^th December, 2015

¶22

¶23

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.40150 of 2015

¶25

Date: 11^th December, 2015

¶26

M.Satyanarayana S/o M.Apparao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Satyanarayana S/o M.Apparao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Korra Sunder Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

S.Nirmalamma, W/o.Anandaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Nakka Bhanuvardhan Vs State of Telangana, Represented by Secretary

T. Manjula Vs The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams

K. S. Brahmananda Rao, Vs State Bank of India rep. by its General Manager

Yerukali Manyam Konda, S/o Venkatanna Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by