Disposed

G. Shankar v. Tsrtc

Telangana HC1 Dec 2016WP/41782/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ petition challenged a suspension order for lack of prior notice. The court held notice/hearing not required for suspension but directed authorities to furnish requested documents so the petitioner could submit an explanation to the charge memo.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to furnish documents sought by petitioner; petitioner directed to submit explanation; enquiry to be completed expeditiously.

G. Shankar Vs Tsrtc — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.41782 of 2016

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dt.15.11.2016 suspending the petitioner pending enquiry.

¶5

It is not disputed that a charge memo dt.12.11.2016 has been served on the petitioner on 15.11.2016 giving one week time to the petitioner to submit explanation. Petitioner gave a representation on 18.11.2016 seeking certain documents, so that he may submit his explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of said documents.

¶6

Counsel for the petitioner contends that certain directions mentioned in para 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition have not been followed and that suspension pending enquiry order dt.15.11.2016 ought not to have passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation.

¶7

As regards the 1^st contention is concerned, the petitioner has an opportunity to file a defense/explanation to the charge memo taking the said stand. As regards the 2^nd contention, there is no requirement in law that an order

¶8

¶9

placing an employee under suspension pending enquiry should be preceded by a notice or a hearing. Therefore, both these contentions are rejected.

¶10

The Writ Petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondents to furnish the documents sought by the petitioner in his representation dt.18.11.2016 within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; the petitioner shall submit his explanation to the charge memo within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of documents from the respondents; and thereafter the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry expeditiously in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.

¶12

_____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶13

01^st December, 2016 gra

G. Shankar v. Tsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Shankar v. Tsrtc

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

S.v.Kanaka Seshu Vs The Vice-Chairman 85 Managing Director

Chandragiri Prasad Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

G. Maheswara Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Bommagoni Prabhakar Goud S/o. Narayana Goud Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Mrs. Shruthi Sethi Vs The Reserve Bank of India, rep. by its Regional Manager

Sampadarao Venkata Srinivas, Vs The Union of India