Dismissed

E.Vijaya Laxmi v. The District Collector (Pw)

Telangana HC25 Oct 2021WP/11862/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking reinstatement and setting aside an impugned suspension order was disposed of at the stage of admission with consent of parties. The Court directed the respondents to review the suspension orders in accordance with law within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to review suspension orders in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994 and pass appropriate orders within a reasonable period.

E.Vijaya Laxmi Vs The District Collector (Pw) — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S TE LANGANA AT HYDE,JfJE DOF (Speciat Originat .turisaiction;

¶2

MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENT' OruT ---''

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

Between:

¶6

WR|T^pETtTtON NO: 11862 OF 2021

¶7

El#i1i,,bjsfldili:iltr#fl^{ft ,ay:f,f,?,iHlii,,friitii,ltT.if,I.?ff} tE#

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The District Collector (p!V-), Karimnagar, Karimnagar District

¶11

? Jl^g P islf^{ic! pa nch ayai} _off i cer, xa ri m"nibai, Kaii m'nasa r oisirtct r. I ne Uommtssioner for panchayat Raj and Rural Employment,, Telangana, Hyderabad

¶12

state of relangana, represented by its principal secretary, panchavat Rai and Rural Development Department, S'ecretariat,' Hyderabad.''

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc.No.A5/2346120201P1s-4, daled 2311012020 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the rules, and consequently set-aside the same and hold that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement to duty as Panchayat Secretary Grade-ll with all consequential and attendant benefits.

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section^'l 51 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of the impugned^{Proc.No.45/2346120201Pts-4'} daled 2311012020 issued by the 1st respondent^{and direct the respondentsto} reinduct the^petitioner to duty as Panchayat^{Secretary Grade-ll, pending disposal of} the above Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D. BALA^{KISHAN RAO}

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP^{FORSERVICES'II}

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BI-E^{SRI JUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SIIAVILI} WRIT PETITION^{No.l 1862of 2021}

¶23

ORDE,R:

¶24

This writ petition is being^{disposed of at the stage of admission} with the consent of both Parties.

¶25

2, This writ petition is filed seeking^{the followingrelief-:} ''...to issue a u'rit. order or direction more in the rrature ol' \'rit ol Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc.No.A5/2346120201Pts-4, dated 23.10.2020 issued by the 1't respondent as being illegal, arbitrary. unjust, contrary to the Rules, and consequently set-aside the same and hold that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement to duty as Panchayat Secretary Grade-II with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Courl may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.,,

¶26

Heard Sri D. Balakishan Rao, counsel for the petitioner, and the Govcrnment Pleader for Services-Il appearing for the respondents. 4. [t has been contended by the petitioner that while she was u,orking as Panchayat Secretary Grade-II with the respondents, the disciplinarv ar-rthority had initiated disciplinary proceedings against her and placed her. under suspen sion vide pr.oceedings dated 23.10.2020. The grievance of the petitioner is that even rhough more than six months have elapsed from the date of placing her under suspension, the respondents are not reviewing the suspension orders strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 0g.03.1994. Therefore, counsel contended that appropriate orders be passed in the rvrit petition directing the respondents to review the suspsnsion mdefi,.. _.

¶27

¶28

AKS I \' P No 11862 oll02,

¶29

oi- rhe petitjonel. srfioly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.g6 dated 08.03,1994,

¶30

(lovc.rnnrent pleader appearing Ibr the respondents had contended that the disciplinary authority would review the suspension orders of the petitioner srictry in accordance with G.o.Ms.No.g6 dated 08.03. 1994 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶31

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by leamed counsel for respective par-ties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of clirecting the respondents to 'crview^{the suspensiorr orders of the petitioner strictly i, accordance} l ith G.O,N4s,No.86 dated 08.0i,1994 and pass appropriate order.s. in luccorclance ri,ith lau. *.ithin a reasonablc periocl o1' tinte, prelerabl' u ithin cight u,eelis tl'onr thc clate of receipt ol a copy of tl-ris ordcr..

¶32

\'ith the above directions. the u,rit petition is disposed of. No

¶33

order as to costs.

¶34

I)enciing rn iscellaueor.rs petitions- il any, shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/-N.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// a

¶36

SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

The District Collector (PW), Karimnagar, Karimnagar District

¶39

The District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District

¶40

The Commissioner for Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment,, Telangana, Hyderabad

¶41

The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶42

One CC to Sri D. Bala Kishan Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶43

Two CCs to GP for Services -ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶44

Two CD Copies

¶45

B. One Spare Copy

SITI

x_-

{

HIGH COURT

DATED:2511012021

ORDER

WP.No.11862 ot 2021

1 irE sTAI6
(
q
co 0I NNzotl no
L
(l
<br>

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE V\IP" WITHOUT COSTS.

¶55

% '&\\

E.Vijaya Laxmi v. The District Collector (Pw)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Vijaya Laxmi v. The District Collector (Pw)

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

Chilukuri Malliah Vs a Narender

M/s. G. S Arun Engineers and Contractors Vs Union of India and 3 Others

M.Amarendher Reddy Vs Col. Rajat Mohan and Another

Vaddera Narsimha Vs State of Telangana

Joseph Karunakar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M.Govardhan Vs The State of Telangana