Dismissed

T.Mohan Kumar v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Telangana HC2 Sept 2020WP/14551/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the suspension of the petitioner as a Village Revenue Officer. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner must exhaust the statutory appeal remedy before approaching the Court. The suspension order was based on prima facie misconduct. No opinion was expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty granted to avail the remedy of appeal.

T.Mohan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P, NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 14551 OF 2020

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

T. l/ohan Kumar, S/o.T.Anandam, Aged 45 years, Occ: Village Revenue Officer, Pothur Cluster of Ellanthakunta lVlandal O/o.Tahsildar, Ellanthakunta Mandal, R/o.H.No.6-31, Vilasagar Village, Boinipalli Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶8

...PET|T|ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

The District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶12

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sircilia, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Ellanthakunta lvlandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶14

..,RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutjon of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any Writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of l,4andamus declaring the lmpugned Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent No.43/706/2020, D1.271O712020 whereby Suspending the Petitioner from working as Village Revenue Officer in Pothur Cluster of Ellanthakunta I,4andal, Rajanna Sircilla District as illegal, arbitrary and in contrary to the provisions of T.C.S. (CC&A) Rules 1991 and also against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently by setting aside the lmpugned Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent, Dt.2710712020, direct the Respondents to forthwith reinstate the Petitioner in to Service as Village Revenue Officer, Pothur Cluster of Ellanthakunta Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the lmpugned Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent No.A3170612020, Dt.2710712020 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C. HARI PREETH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - ll FOR

¶20

GP FOR REVENUE

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION NO. 14551 OF 2O2O

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Hearcl learned counsel lor petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

¶26

'2. Petitioner is u'orking .:Ls Village RcvenLle^()lTicer, Polhur ciustcr ol trliantl'rakunta mandal, Rajanna Sirsilla district. Wl'rile so, vicle proceedings dated 27 .7 .2O2O, the District Collector/ 2,,4 respondent placed him under suspension. Hence, this writ petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that prior to the order of suspension, no notice was issued and straightaway suspension is resorted to. It is further contended that the impugned order does not speak about initiation of disciplinary proceedings, therefore, without taking a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings, suspension cannot be resorted.

¶28

It is not in dispute that the District Collector is competent authority to place a Village Revenue Officer under suspension. Reacling of paragraph 1 of the order impugned would show that District Collector r,l,as prima facie convinced on alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner and viewing the alleged misconduct as grave, resorted to suspension, thus, it cannot be said that there v"'as no application ol mind. It is not necessary that suspension order should speak of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. If no disciplinary proceedings are initiated within the stipulated time and petitioner is allowed to continue under suspension, he can avail the appropriate remedy at that stage. Further, against the order of suspension, remedy of appeal is available and without exhausting said remedy, this writ petition is filed.

¶29

¶30

i \

¶31

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. If petitioner avails the remedy of appeal, it is open for him to raise all contentions available to him in lau'. It is made clcar that thcre is no expression of opinion on merits and u,hatever is observed herein above is only for the purpose of consideration of maintainabilitl, of the .r'rit petition. At this stage, it is also needless to observe that il appeal is preferred, same shall be considered and a reasoned order shall be passed expeditiously preferably within eights weeks from the date of filing of such appeal. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending, stand closed.

¶32

^'.',1ilSl?S[lHiR ,TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶33

To,

¶34

1 one^{cc to^?I'-%5?:',-Pj:il:A9n:it?,t3l,i,t:Lrthe state or reransanaat} Revenue'^{Hish courtror the Stateor relansana at} 1 +['""#[^E"%f '"' Hvderabad^{(OU| )} a Two^{CD CoPies} CHR

.\h\x

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912020

ORDER

F
l'A-
al
oo 0 7 sEP 2u0

.s T
.-...,.

¶40

W.P.No.14551 of 2020

¶41

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶42

\ )
-/ I cr,"
-rA<br>(^\ rV
-*]

T.Mohan Kumar v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Mohan Kumar v. The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Battapothula Srinu Vs The State of Telangana

Ravula Vimala Vs The State of Telangana

Jatothu Manjula Vs The Union of India

Pilli Apparao, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Alya Naik Vs The State of Telangana

T. Narasimha Rao Vs T.S.R.T.C. and 2 Others