Partly allowed

D.Ganesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC18 Aug 2017WP/27662/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a Tribunal order discussing merits before dismissal. The Supreme Court allowed the petition in part, setting aside the merit-based paragraph as premature and prejudicial, permitting an alternate appeal unaffected by Tribunal findings.

What did the court decide?

Paragraph 2 of Tribunal order set aside; Writ Petition allowed in part; petitioner free to file appeal influenced-free of Tribunal's findings.

D.Ganesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.27662 of 2017

¶3

Date:18.8.2017

¶4

Between : D.Ganesh, S/o Late D.Rajaiah ..... Petitioner And: The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District and three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. N.Ramesh Counsel for the respondent: GP for Services-I (AP) The Court made the following:

¶5

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP.No.27662 of 2017 Dated:18.8.2017

¶6

¶7

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)

¶8

Feeling aggrieved by dismissal of O.A.No.1802 of 2017 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Act’), vide order, dated 06.7.2017, the unsuccessful applicant therein filed this Writ Petition.

¶9

The petitioner filed the afore-mentioned O.A. questioning order, dated 30.12.2016, of respondent No.4 removing him from service as Night Watchman. The Tribunal has declined to entertain the said O.A. in view of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner and the bar contained in Section-20 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on maintainability of the Original Application before it without exhausting the alternative remedy. Having so held, the Tribunal, however, went further, discussed the merits of the case and rendered a finding that there are no procedural lapses in the departmental enquiry.

¶10

In our opinion, this exercise undertaken by the Tribunal was wholly unnecessary. When the Tribunal was not inclined to entertain the said O.A. on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, it is not justified in delving into the merits of the case, which would eventually prejudice the interests of the petitioner even if he avails the alternative remedy of appeal.

¶11

CVNR, J & GSP, J WP.No.27662 of 2017 Dated:18.8.2017

¶12

¶13

In this view of the matter, paragraph No.2 of the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed in part. The petitioner is left free to file appeal before the competent authority. If such appeal is filed, the competent authority shall consider the same without being influenced by any of the findings rendered by the Tribunal in the said O.A. either on merits or on limitation.

¶14

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.34360 of 2017 is disposed of as infructuous.

¶15

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY _______________________________ JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD 18^th August 2017 DR

D.Ganesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Ganesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Venkanna, Vs The Director of Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and

Y.V. Siva Rama Krishna Vs N. Kasturi

D. Ramachander Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

V.Appala Raju, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana

P. Nagarjuna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh