Petitioner challenged a letter regarding disciplinary action as an unexplained termination order. The court held it was internal correspondence. The writ petition was dismissed as premature because no final order of termination had been served.
The writ petition is dismissed as premature.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN
Present
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.40219 of 2015
Between:
Yerukali Manyam Konda, S/o. Venkatanna, Aged 29 years, Occ: Field Assistant, R/o. Muchithal Village, Chinna Chinthakunta Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.
.. Petitioner
AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others
.. Respondents
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.40219 of 2015
ORDER:
The petitioner is a Field Assistant. The petitioner challenges the letter, dated 09.10.2015, contending that the said letter is an order of termination of service and such termination is effected without following the due process.
2. As seen from the letter, dated 09.10.2015, impugned in the writ petition, it is a communication from the Project Director, D.W.M.A., Mahabubnagar District (2nd respondent) to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Chinna Chinthakunta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (3rd respondent) to take disciplinary action against the petitioner in accordance with the earlier communications and expressing displeasure over not taking action as already requested. Thus, it is only an internal correspondence by a Superior authority to the Subordinate to take appropriate action as required on the complaints received against the petitioner and it is not an order of termination. Therefore, on the said internal communication, no cause arises for the petitioner to challenge the same in this writ petition. The petitioner can have a grievance only if an order of termination is served. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as premature.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
____________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J
Date: 11th December, 2015 KL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.40219 of 2015
Date: 11th December, 2015
KL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a communication directing disciplinary action constitutes an order of termination challenging termination without due process.
Yerukali Manyam Konda
The State of Telangana
P. Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
