Disposed

M.a.Chand Pasha v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Mar 2020WP/5111/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition challenging the suspension of a Village Revenue Officer. The court held that the disciplinary authority was competent to suspend the petitioner and declined to interfere at this stage, granting liberty to seek further remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty granted to avail appeal or request review of suspension if proceedings conclude beyond reasonable time.

M.a.Chand Pasha Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.5111 OF 2020

¶3

DATED :06.03.2020

¶4

Between :

¶5

M.A.Chand Pasha S/o.Gaffar, Aged 37 yrs, Occu : Village Revenue Officer, Eivi Cluster, Tanoor Mandal, Nirmal District, R/o.Jafrapur Village, Soan mandal, Nirmal District.

¶6

..... Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

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

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

¶11

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.5111 OF 2020

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II for learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶14

Petitioner was working as Village Revenue Officer. By the order dated 30.12.2019, he was placed under suspension by the District Collector, Nirmal, on the ground of mis-conduct committed by him. It appears, petitioner filed his explanation on 06.01.2020. It is not in dispute that the District Collector, is the disciplinary authority and he is competent to place the petitioner under suspension. The Order of suspension did not mention the reasons for suspension. The order refers to alleged grave charges and without any further delay, Charge Memo was drawn and communicated to the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that petitioner is no way responsible for alleged correction of revenue records. It is the Tahsildar, who undertakes the job and there is no proof of any demand made by the petitioner as alleged. He would submit that though detailed explanation was filed by the petitioner on 06.01.2020, so far no further proceedings are communicated to him. There is no progress in the enquiry, but petitioner made to languish under suspension for more than two months.

¶16

As the Disciplinary Authority is competent to place the petitioner under suspension and is also competent to initiate

¶17

¶18

disciplinary proceedings, the Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage.

¶19

Thus, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal against the suspension and if there is no progress in the disciplinary proceedings, and the proceedings are not concluded within the reasonable time, having regard to the Government instructions of expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings, petitioner may request for review of his suspension. On making such request, the same shall be considered objectively by the respondents. Pending miscellaneous

¶20

petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶21

__________________
P.NAVEEN RAO,J
6 th March, 2020
Rds

M.a.Chand Pasha v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Chand Pasha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gownicadi Venkateswar Vs Tsrtc and 5 others

Kummari Krishna Murthy Vs The Telangana State Public Service Commission (Tspsc)

The Depot Manager Vs S.Ramesh

V.Ravinder, Vs Sri Sk. Singh, Ias.

Smt. G. Nagarani Vs State of Telangana, And 4 Others

Dabbagatla Padmavathi Vs Direct of Public Health and Family Welfare Dept and 2 others