This order addresses a writ petition challenging the petitioner's suspension pending enquiry. The court declined to examine the allegations' merit but directed the authority to complete the enquiry within four months.
Completion of enquiry within four months complying with natural justice.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 44021 OF 2016
ORDER:
Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to declare the proceedings dated 28.10.2016 of the third respondent placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry.
Though counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the allegation levelled against the petitioner did not warrant his suspension pending enquiry, I am not inclined to go into the said issue since it is not the case of the petitioner that the order of suspension passed by the authority is without jurisdiction.
The Writ Petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondents to complete the enquiry into the allegation against the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after complying with the principles of natural justice and regulations of the Corporation. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
2
DATE: 19.12.2016 KA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the order suspending the petitioner pending enquiry.
Whether to direct completion of the enquiry within a specified timeframe.
Petitioner
Third Respondent
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
