Dismissed

G.Urmila Devi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC25 Apr 2017WP/11649/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged cheating and extra-marital relationship by a respondent, prompting a request for action. The court held allegations do not concern employment and case remains under investigation. Writ petition dismissed with leave to approach authority upon charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to approach competent authority if charge-sheet is filed by police in future.

G.Urmila Devi Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.11649 of 2017

¶3

Date : 25.4.2017

¶4

Writ Petition No.11649 of 2017

¶5

Between : G.Urmila Devi, W/o Sri G.Krishna Murty, aged 47 years, Occ : Housewife, r/o Flat No.104, Maitri Apartments, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, Hyderabad - 500015 .. Petitioner

¶6

and The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & Others .. Respondents

¶7

The Court made the following order :

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶9

Writ Petition No.11649 of 2017

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

The petitioner filed a complaint against the 3^rd respondent alleging that the 3^rd respondent developed extra-marital relationship with her promising her that he would marry her as his second wife and later with an intent to cheat her, he refused to marry and threatened her with dire consequences. The complaint is registered as F.I.R. in Crime No.24 of 2017 on the file of the Trimulgherry Police Station on 23.2.2017. Based on the crime registered, the petitioner represented to the respondents 1 and 2 separately requesting to take action against the 3^rd respondent. Alleging inaction by the official respondents, this writ petition is filed.

¶12

It is not in dispute what is alleged against the 3^rd respondent is not connected with employment. If what is alleged is proved, then it may amount to serious misconduct, however, as of now, the crime is at the stage of investigation.

¶13

However, the Commissioner, School Education, informed the Government Pleader vide the letter, dated 20.4.2017 that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, explanation was called from the 3^rd respondent and the 3^rd respondent denied the allegations made. Since it is the complaint of the petitioner and denial by the 3^rd respondent and what is alleged primarily does not concern employment, the 3^rd respondent cannot be mandated to take action based on her complaint at this stage.

¶14

:: 2 ::

¶15

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is needless to observe that in the event of the investigation conducted by police results in filing charge-sheet, it is open for the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of the competent authority and at that stage, it is for the concerned authority to take appropriate action. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall

¶17

stand closed.

¶18

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J. April 25, 2017. skmr

G.Urmila Devi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Urmila Devi v. The State of Telangana

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

Y. Eswaramma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Principal

N.R. Vasantha Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

Chilla Anil Kumar Vs Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

Y.V.V. Vara Prasad Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Karri Venkatrao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

J. B. Sankara Rao, Vs Regional Joint Commissioner