Allowed

Joginapalli Venkateswarlu v. The State of Teiangana

Telangana HC14 Jun 2017WP/18888/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a termination order based on absence from an enquiry due to illness and family emergency. The court, accepting the petitioner's explanation of illness and mother's stroke, set aside the termination order and directed a rehearing at a specified date.

What did the court decide?

To set aside the termination order and direct the respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry on 29.06.2017 at 11:00 a.m.

Joginapalli Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Teiangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WP.No.18888 of 2017

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

Heard the counsel for petitioner, and Smt. R. Padma Rekha, learned Standing Counsel for 7^th respondent.

¶5

2. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dt.10.04.2017 passed by the 7^th respondent terminating petitioner’s services on the ground that he did not attend the enquiry fixed on 10.04.2017, in spite of the fact that notice of the enquiry was given to him on 18.03.2017 fixing the date of enquiry as 10.04.2017.

¶6

3. The counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner had high fever on 10.04.2017 and his mother had a paralytic stroke at that time and so he could not attend the enquiry; that he informed these facts to the 7^th respondent on 10.05.2017 through a letter, but the 7^th respondent has not taken any action thereon. In support of his plea that he suffered illness, he has filed medical certificate of himself and of his mother.

¶7

4. The counsel for petitioner further contends that, but for the above reasons, the petitioner would have attended the enquiry on 10.04.2017 and his absence to attend the said enquiry on that day is neither willful nor wanton, and therefore the impugned order be set aside.

¶8

MSR,J wp_18888_2017

¶9

::2::

¶10

5. Though Sri R. Padma Rekha, learned Standing Counsel for 7^th respondent, sought to contend that petitioner’s absence was rightly taken as a ground for terminating his services permanently since admittedly he was absent only on 10.04.2017 at the time of the enquiry, and since it appears that he was seriously unwell on that day and his mother also was unwell, I deem it proper to set aside the order dt.10.04.2017 and direct the petitioner to appear before the 7^th respondent on 29.06.2017 at 11:00 a.m. without fail.

¶11

6. The 7^th respondent shall then proceed with the enquiry and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶12

7. If the petitioner does not appear before the 7^th respondent on that day, the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed.

¶13

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs.

¶14

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶15

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶16

Date: 14-06-2017

¶17

Note : Issue C.C. by 21.06.2017. B/o. Ndr/*

Joginapalli Venkateswarlu v. The State of Teiangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginapalli Venkateswarlu v. The State of Teiangana

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 A.P. Power Engineers Association, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. K. Sarojini Vs The State of Telangana

B. Hanuma Naik Vs The Dredging Corporation of India Limited

K.Kotaiah, Vs The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

B. Durga Rao Vs Girijan Co-Operative Corporation Ltd. Visakhapatanam

K.S. Rayudu, Vs . The Regional Manager