Disposed

S.Shankar v. The Director of Horticulture State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC1 Apr 2021WP/19667/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Horticulture officer seeking direction to conclude delayed departmental proceedings. The court ordered the respondent authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within six months or the charge memo would be set aside, noting the petition was disposed of on joint admissions.

What did the court decide?

Directing the disciplinary authority to conclude proceedings against the petitioner within six months from the date of the order or set aside the charge memo.

S.Shankar Vs The Director of Horticulture… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETITIO N NO: 19667 O F 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

S.Shankar, S/O. Chukkachari, Age 47 years, Occ, Horticulture officer (Tech) O/O District Horticulture and Sericuilure Officer H.No. 2.5.47, B.K. Rlddy Colony Nakkalgutta, Hanamakonda, Warangal District-506001,

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND1. The Director of Ho(iculture State of Telangana, public Gardens Nampally Hyderabad

¶10

2 The.State of Telangana, Rep by its principal Secretary. Agriculture and Production Commissioner, Secretariat Buiidings, Hyderabid

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Wrrt of Mandamus.

¶13

A) To declare the entire action of the respondents, in not concluding the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide charge memo No. Estt (2)39112018-3, daled 211412018 of the^'1 st respondent, despite of submitting detaited explanation as on 41512018 denying the alleged Article of charge and inspite of making repeated representations dated 121412019, 1slsl2o1g and 3/6/2019, wherein requesting to conclude the proceedings by separating his case is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust colorable exercise of power, violative of all principles of natural justice even contrary to guidelines issued by the Govt. vide G.O,Ms.No. 679 GA (Ser.C) Deg. dated 111112008 and other way not considering his case for promotion to the post of Asst. Director (Horticulture) is bad in law if necessary set-a-side the very charge memo.

¶14

B) Consequently, to direct the respondents to fo(hwith conclude the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide charge memo No. Estt (2)39i/20183, dated 211412018 of the 1st respondent by duly considering his explanation dt.41512018 and subsequent representations dated.121412019,1Sl5l2O19 and 31612019, in the interest of lustice and fair play to enable the petitioner to get his legitimate right of promotion to the post of Asst. Director of Horticulture within his turn.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

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 direct the respondents to forthwith conclude the pending department proceedings initiated against the pelltioner vide charge memo No. Estt (2)391/2018-3, dated 21 .4.20i8 of the 1st respondent, by duly considering his explanation dated 4.5.2018 and subsequent representations daled 12 4.2019,15.5.2019 and 3.6.2019, to enable him to get his promotion to the post of Asst. Director of Horticulture as per his turn

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. S. SAWANARAYANA RAO

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the foltowing:

¶19

THE HON'BTE SRI^{JUSTICEABHINANDKUMARSHAVITI} T PET No.l9 of 20

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This writ^{pelitionis being disposed of ol the odmissionsioge}

¶22

with the consent^{of both} Porties.

¶23

This wrii^{petition is} filed^{seekingthe followlngrelief:}

¶24

""..... to issue an^{appropriate Writ or order or Direction} more particutarly^{one in the natureof Writ of MandamusA)} to dectare the entire^{action of the respondents in not} conctuding the departmentaI^{proceedingsinitiated against} the petitioner vide charge^{memoNo.Estt(2)391/2018-3,} dated 21/4/2.018 of the 1't^{respondent despite of} submittjng detaited^{explanation as on 4/5/2018denying} the atteged Artic[e of charge^{and jnspiteof making} repeated representations daled^{1 2 I 4 I 7019,15 I 5 I 2019and} 3/6/2019, wherein^{requestingto conctudethe proceedings} by separating his^{caseis as highty ittegat,arbitrary,unjust,} cotorabte exercise of^{power, viotativeof atl princip[esof} natural^justice even contrary^{to guidetines issued by the} Govt., vide G.O.Ms.No.679^{GA(Ser.C)Dept., dated} 1111/2008 and other way not^{consideringhis case for} promotion to the^post of Asst Director^{(Horticulture)is bad} in taw, if necessary set^{asidethe very chargememo} B) consequentty to direct^{the respondents to forthwith} conctude the departmental^{proceedings initiatedagainst} the petitioner vide charge^{memoNo.Estt(2)391/2018-3,} dated 21/412018 of the^{1't respondentby duty considering} his exptanation d|.41517018^{andsubsequent} representations daled 12/412019,^{15/512019and 3/6/2019} in the interest of^justjce and^{fair ptay to enabtethe} petitioner to get his tegitimate right of^{promotion to the} post of Asst Director of Horticulture within his^{turn......' ""}

¶25

Heord Sri S.solyonoroyono^{Roo,leorned counsel oppeoring} for the pelilioner ond the leorned Government^{Pleoder oppeoring}

¶26

for the respondenis.

¶27

It hos been contended by^{the petitioner thot he is workingos} Horticulture Officer ond the disciplinory^{outhoriiyhod issuedo} chorge memo on 21.04.2018 ond^{in spite of lopse of more thon} three^yeors. the disciplinory^{outhority hos not concludedthe} disciplinory^{proceedings. As per G.O.Ms.No.679doted 01.11.2008,} the disciplinory outhorily musi^{concludethedisciplinory} proceedings within o period of six months in^{respect of moior} chorges^qnd within o^{period of three monthsin respect of minor} chorges. Bul, in^{the instont cose,even though three yeors hove} elopsed, the disciplinory^{outhorily hos nol concluded the} disciplinory^proceedings.

¶28

Leorned counsel oppeoring^{for the petitioner hod conlended} thol in view of^{pendencyof disciplinoryproceedings,the cose of} the^petitioner is not belng^{considered for promotionto the next} higher post. Therefore,^{opproprioteorders be possed in the wril} petition directing the disciplinory outhority to^concludethe disciplinory^{proceedingswilhin} o^{reosonobleperiod,preferobly} within o^period of six^{monlhs in lerms of G.O.Ms.No.679doled} Ol.ll.2OO8. lf the disciplinory^{outhoritydoes not conclude the} disciplinory^{proceedings wiihinthe stipuloted time, then the soid} chorge memo moy^{be dropped.}

¶29

Leorned Governmenl^{Pleoderoppeoring for the respondenls} hod contended lhol^{ihe disciplinoryoulhority would concludelhe} disciplinory^{proceedingswithin o period of six monlhsin lermsof} G.O.Ms.No.679 doted^{Ol.ll.2O0Bond possoppropriote orders in} occordonce^{with low.}

¶30

¶31

¶32

This Court, hoving considered the^{rivol submissions modeby} the leorned counsel for the^porties,is of^{the consideredview thot} this writ petition con be disposed of direcling^{the disciplinory} outhority to conclude the disciplinory^{proceedingsinitioted ogoinst} ihe peiitioner vide chorge Memo doted^{21.04.2018within o} reosonoble period, preferobly within o^period of six monihs from the dote of receipt of o copy of this order. lf the disciplinory proceedings ore not concludeC withln six monlhs, the chorge memo sionds set oside.

¶33

Wilh the obove direciions, the writ petilion is disposed of. No order os io costs.

¶34

Pending miscelloneous petitions, if ony, sholl stond closed.

¶35

¶36

SD/.K,VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Qt SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To,

¶38

1 . The Director of Horticulture State of relangana and another, public Gardens Nampally Hyderabad 2 '^{The Principal} secretarv. Agricurture and^production commissioner, state of Tetangana. Secretaria( Bui"tdinga, Hy;";ab;J"-'^-" 43. gLg lwo CCs 99]g to the Sri. S.satyanaraya-nd GP for Aoriculture, Rio. High Rovoiate Court foitne topuclStdte of Telangana. (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies.

PIV \

--{'l{'x''@F4*

HIGH COURT

DATED:01/04/2021

ORDER

WP.No.19667 ol 2020

-t k\e ra lr€,
t
,?
f,o
L\ 3 0 APR 2021
*
t3

¶46

Disposing of the WP Without costs. -rQ +^,

S.Shankar v. The Director of Horticulture State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Shankar v. The Director of Horticulture State of Telangana and another

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

Dr.K.Raju Vs State of Telangana and another

Krishnaveni Talent School (E/M) and another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Inala Krishna Vs The Telangana State Power Generation of Company Limited (Tsgenco) and 2 others

Sri.Md.Khadar Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

M.V. Bhadraiah Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

E.Srinivas Vs The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare