Remanded

Y.Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Feb 2019WP/2312/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a writ petition seeking reinstatement of a suspended prison warder. The court directed the respondent to review the suspension order framed under G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner's case for reviewing the suspension order and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Y.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2312 of 2019

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 suspending the petitioner from service vide proceedings No.CPCH/E2/10215-20/2018, dated 04.08.2018, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently sought a direction to respondent No.3 to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith by setting aside the suspension proceedings dated 04.08.2018 issued by respondent No.3.

¶5

The petitioner was appointed as a Warder on 06.03.2012 in Central Prison, Ongole, and subsequently transferred to the Central Prison, Cherlapalli, in the year 2014. While so, respondent No.3 has placed the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings No.CPCH/E2/10215-20/2018, dated 04.08.2018, on the ground that the petitioner had illegally demanded money from one of the convicts. The petitioner submits that he has not committed any illegality and, therefore, the question of placing him under suspension is arbitrary and illegal.

¶6

AKS, J 2

¶7

W.P.No.2312 of 2019

¶8

Heard Sri J.P. Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Services.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though six months have elapsed after suspending the petitioner from service, the respondents are not reviewing the said suspension order in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86, dated 08.03.1994. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to review the impugned suspension order dated 04.08.2018 issued against him in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86, dated 08.03.1994.

¶10

On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for Services contends that the case of the petitioner will be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86, dated 08.03.1994.

¶11

This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner for reviewing the impugned suspension order dated 04.08.2018 issued against him in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86, dated 08.03.1994, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

W.P.No.2312 of 2019

¶13

¶14

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed

¶15

of. No order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶17

______________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

19.02.2019. Msr

AKS, J 4

W.P.No.2312 of 2019

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.2312 of 2019

¶23

19.02.2019 Msr

Y.Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Srinivas 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Anusha Vs The State of Telangana

E.Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

B. Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Gampa Gunnamma, Vs The State of Telagana

Sadullah Vs The Superintendent

Choppadandi Lachulu Vs The Chairman and Managing Director