Disposed

G.Srinivas, v. The Commissioner of Endowments

Telangana HC13 Feb 2019WP/2384/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The warrant petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to conclude pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within three months. The court held that promotion would be subject to the outcome of these proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to conclude disciplinary proceedings within three months; promotion to be considered subject to inquiry outcome.

G.Srinivas, Vs The Commissioner of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.2384 OF 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing an Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 27.08.2017 and proceedings dated 09.05.2018 of the 2^nd respondent Devastanam and not conducting inquiry, despite the petitioner submitting his written statements of defence on 10.09.2017 and 25.05.2018, as arbitrary, illegal and opposed to law.

¶5

Heard Sri M.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri Kotha Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶6

It has been contended by the petitioner that he has been working as an Assistant Executive Officer in the 2^nd respondent Devastanam and, while so, the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and issued charge memo on 27.08.2017 and 09.05.2018. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has submitted detailed explanations on 10.09.2017 and 25.05.2018, but the respondents are neither considering his explanation by exonerating the charges leveled against him nor finalizing the disciplinary proceedings.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Rules, for allegations which involve serious lapses, the respondents are supposed to conclude the inquiry within a period of six months, and where simple allegations are leveled, the respondents must conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months and, therefore, contends that the action of the respondents in not concluding the inquiry in respect of which charge memos were issued almost one and half years back, and denying

¶8

¶9

promotion to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to conclude the inquiry as stipulated in the Rules or in the alternative, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post.

¶11

Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the 1^st respondent assures this Court that the inquiry initiated against the petitioner would be concluded within a period of three months and the case of the petitioner for promotion will be considered subject to the outcome of the disciplinary cases which have been initiated against the petitioner.

¶12

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 the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in terms of Government Memo No.51883/Ser.C/2002-2, G.A..(Ser-D) Department, dated 19.12.2002, within a period of three months from today, and the promotion of the petitioner will be subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him.

¶13

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

____________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

¶15

Dated: 13^th February, 2019 v v

¶16

G.Srinivas, v. The Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Srinivas, v. The Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Rao Vs Union of India, Rep. by Prl.Secy., New Delhi, and 5 Others

V. Rajitha Vs State of Telangana

Ch Vijaya Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Rafeequnnisa Vs Chief Executive Officer

U.Chandrasekhar Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

V. Raju Vs Telangana State Pollution Control Board