Disposed

T.Kiran Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Oct 2018WP/37811/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposing of an earlier Tribunal order that dismissed the petitioner's service suspension appeal due to alternative remedy availability. Court directs appellate authority to deduct the Tribunal's three-year pendency from limitation period when petitioner subsequently avails the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directing appellate authority to deduct the period of pendency of the Tribunal's application from the limitation period for filing the appeal against the punishment order of 10.07.2014.

T.Kiran Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

WRI T PETI TI ON No.37811 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar)

¶4

The petitioner is the unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No.2350 of 2015 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was dismissed by order dated 07.06.2018. The prayer of the petitioner in the said O.A. was directed against the order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the Superintendent of Police, YSR Kadapa District, dismissing him from service as a Police Constable. By the order dated 07.06.2018, the Tribunal noted that the petitioner did not avail the alternative remedy of appeal provided to him under Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, against the punishment order dated 10.07.2014 and approached the Tribunal directly. Holding that there were no special or extraordinary circumstances to entertain the O.A., the Tribunal dismissed the same granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority against the impugned punishment order, subject to the period of limitation.

¶5

Sri P.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would point out that the O.A. was kept pending on the file of the Tribunal since 2015 and was dismissed three years later on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. He would further submit that the Tribunal did not even save the period of limitation in the context of the time consumed due to the pendency of the O.A. before it.

¶6

We find merit in the aforestated submission. Having kept the matter pending for nearly three years, the Tribunal decided to relegate

¶7

¶8

the petitioner to the alternative remedy of appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held that the period consumed owing to the pendency of the O.A. should be deducted while reckoning the period of limitation for filing an appeal.

¶9

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of making it clear that if and when the petitioner avails the appellate remedy, the appellate authority shall be mindful of the fact that the petitioner chose to approach the Tribunal in the first instance against the punishment order dated 10.07.2014 and the period of time taken for disposal of the said O.A. since its inception shall be deducted while calculating the period of limitation for filing an appeal.

¶10

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the

¶11

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

¶12

SANJAY KUMAR,J

M. GANGA RAO, J

¶13

Date: 22.10.2018 IBL

T.Kiran Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Kiran Kumar 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

Jangam Venkatachalam Vs the State of Ts

Mohammad Naveedul Haq Vs The State of Telangana

B. Janardhana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Sivakoti Varalakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Government of Telangana Vs Mohd. Anees Ahmed

S. Ravindra Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh