Dismissed

Y.v.Ramana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Nov 2016WP/39149/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition by a Town Planning Officer challenging a charge memo and seeking promotion was dismissed. The court held that delay was not fatal, merits of unauthorized construction belong to disciplinary proceedings, and Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to direct promotion while charge remains.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Y.v.Ramana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶2

AND HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶3

Writ Petition No.39149 of 2016

¶4

ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Just ice V. Ramasubramanian )

¶5

Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application, challenging a charge memo and seeking promotion, a Town Planning Officer of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, has come up with the present writ petition.

¶6

The charge memo was challenged on two grounds, namely, (1) that there has been a long delay, both in the initiation and in the continuance; and (2) that the petitioner was transferred before the alleged unauthorized construction.

¶7

As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the unauthorized nature of construction came to light in the year 2011. Moreover, the delay in initiation of proceedings cannot be fatal to a charge memo. Hence, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the first ground.

¶8

Insofar as the second ground is concern, it is a matter to be considered on merits when the disciplinary proceedings are conducted. The petitioner cannot seek a discharge on merits either before the Tribunal or before this court at this stage.

¶9

Insofar as the grievance of the petitioner relating to the promotion is concerned, the Tribunal was right in dismissing O.A., since the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion without reference to the charge memo.

¶10

¶11

Hence, we find no merits in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶12

_______________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J

¶13

___________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD, J

Date: 14.11.2016 BSS

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND

¶18

HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

¶19

Writ Petition No.39149 of 2016

¶20

( per Hon’ble Sri Just ice V.Ramasubramanian)

¶21

BSS

¶22

Date: 14.11.2016

Y.v.Ramana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.v.Ramana, 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

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Shaik Shafee

Kajjam Sridhar Vs The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad

Dr. P.Veeranna Goud, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Jalavihar Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana

Mrs. v.Suvarna Phani, Vs Bank of India, Khairtabad Branch

Smt T. Govindamma, Vs The State Bank Of India