Allowed

The State of Telangana, v. Ade Rajesham

Telangana HC19 Jan 2017WP/1128/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This disposal order sets aside the writ petition filed by the State of Telangia and Police officials. The Court quashed the Administrative Tribunal's order reinstating the petitioner and directed authorities to re-examine his candidature for Police Constable, considering his acquittal and the legal requirement to apply mind in such cases.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Tribunal order dated 16.06.2014; order dated 25.05.2011; direct authorities to re-examine candidature within two months.

The State of Telangana, Vs Ade Rajesham — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.1128 of 2016

¶5

O R D E R : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶6

The State of Telangana and its Police officials are aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2014 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.5662 of 2011.

¶7

The said O.A. was filed by the 1^st respondent herein assailing the cancellation of his provisional selection as a Police Constable on the ground of his involvement in a criminal case. By order dated 16.06.2014, the Tribunal held that the cancellation of the 1^st respondent’s provisional selection was invalid in law as the criminal case in which he was involved ended in his acquittal. The authorities were therefore directed to appoint him to the post of Police Constable pursuant to his selection with all consequential benefits. Hence, this writ petition.

¶8

The order dated 25.05.2011, whereunder the 1^st respondent’s provisional selection was cancelled, does not record any reasons. In terms of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NEW DELHI,

¶9

¶10

SK,J & NBY,J W.P.No.1128 of 2016

¶11

AND ANOTHER Vs. MEHAR SINGH¹ , the Screening Committee is required to apply its mind while assessing as to whether involvement of the selected candidate in a criminal case warranted cancellation of his selection notwithstanding his discharge on technical grounds or acquittal on merits.

¶12

In the present case, the impugned proceedings dated 25.05.2011 do not reflect any such application of mind. We are therefore of the opinion that this is a fit case for the authorities to re-examine the matter in the light of the acquittal of the 1^st respondent in S.C.No.164 of 2006 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad, vide judgment dated 05.01.2007.

¶13

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of setting aside the order dated 16.06.2014 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.5662 of 2011 and also the impugned order dated 25.05.2011 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District. The authorities concerned shall re-examine the candidature of the 1^st respondent in the light of his acquittal vide judgment dated 05.01.2007 passed in S.C.No.164 of 2006 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and, in any event, not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

1 (2013) 7 SCC 685

¶15

¶16

SK,J & NBY,J W.P.No.1128 of 2016

¶17

6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶18

closed. No order as to costs.

¶19

_________________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶20

________________________ N. BALAYOGI, J

¶21

Date: 19.01.2017. Msr

¶22

¶23

SK,J & NBY,J

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.1128 of 2016

¶27

19.01.2017 Msr

The State of Telangana, v. Ade Rajesham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Telangana, v. Ade Rajesham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt N.Padma Vs The State of Telangana

T. Kamala Devi Vs The State of Telangana rep.by its Secretary

Union of India. Vs S. Radhakrishna

G.Jyotheeswari Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by Principal Secretary

B.Chandra Sekhar, Vs The State of Telangana

Union of India, Vs Ch. Bala Swamy