Dismissed

Ch. Srinivasulu, v. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC17 Jan 2017WP/45616/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that stayed a government servant's removal pending a criminal appeal. The Court held that dismissal for corruption involving moral turpitude justified the government's action and the Tribunal's stay order did not warrant judicial interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to file a fresh O.A. after disposal of the Criminal Appeal.

Ch. Srinivasulu, Vs Union of India, Rep… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. BALAYOGI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.45616 of 2016

¶3

ORDER: (per SK, J)

¶4

Unsuccessful before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

¶5

Hyderabad Bench, in O.A.No.667 of 2013, the applicant therein is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2013 passed by the Tribunal disposing of the said O.A. as premature.

¶6

The petitioner/applicant was removed from service pursuant to his conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.667 of 2013 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, was of the opinion that as long as the conviction stood, the removal of the petitioner/applicant from service could not be held to be irregular.

¶7

Though Sri B. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, would contend that Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules vests the disciplinary authority with discretion to pass appropriate orders pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal preferred by his client, he does not dispute the fact that the conviction suffered by

¶8

SK, J & NBY, J W.P.No.45616 of 2016

¶9

¶10

the petitioner/applicant was for an offence involving moral turpitude. We are therefore of the opinion that the exercise of discretion by the disciplinary authority under Rule 19 of the aforestated Rules cannot be categorized as arbitrary or injudicious. We further find that the Tribunal merely opined that the O.A. was premature and granted liberty to the petitioner/applicant to file a fresh O.A. after disposal of the Criminal Appeal preferred by him. In the light of the liberty granted which we reiterate, we find no grounds made out for interference.

¶11

The Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the liberty aforestated.

¶12

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed

¶13

in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶14

___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

17^th JANUARY, 2017.

N. BALAYOGI, J

kvni

Ch. Srinivasulu, v. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Srinivasulu, v. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

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. Rama Rao Vs Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Department of Pension

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Vs Nagaraiu. S/0. Late Rainaswamy. Retired Messenger

Tatineni Koteswara Rao, Vs Union of India, Through its Secretary

Boya Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

Smt N.Padma Vs The State of Telangana

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