A writ petition by a railway employee challenging the initiation of fresh disciplinary proceedings after a Central Administrative Tribunal order granted liberty for fresh enquiry.
Liberty granted to petitioner to challenge subsequent disciplinary proceedings instituted by respondents in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
IVONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKERREDDY
AND
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEMAKTHER
WRIT PETITION NO: 2067 OF2021
Between:
M. Srinivas, S/o. M.MadhavaRao,Aged47 yeqq,Occ.-LocoPilot (Passenger) (Group 'C'), O/o. The Chief Crew- Cbntrollei-(TRSO),South CentralRailway, bitraglnta bepot, BitraguntaR.S., OngoleDt. A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 oflhe conslitutionof lndia praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavil filedtherewith, the High Court may be pleasedto issue a writ, order ordirection more particularlyone in the natureof certiorari by calling for the order dated23111t2O2Oin o.A.No.020/00361of 2020 passed by the centr"at AdministrativeTribunal, Hyderabadalong with the consequential Memorandums daled2311212020and 01lo1t2o21andletter dated 1210112021issued uy tn" zno respondentand quashthe directions in the said order of the Tribunal and the Memorandum dated:zitlztzozo to the extent of proceedingafresh from the itag" ot issuing theChargeSheet and accordinglyselaside and quashthe Meirorandum a|tea OlmdO2lalong with other consequential proceedings,and direct the respondentsto treat the disciplinary case initiated against the petitioner as closed andgrant all consequentialbenefits to the petitioner'
lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleased to susperdthe order dated: 23111t2020in o.A.No.020/00361of 2020passed by the central Administrative Tribunal,Hyderabadto the extent of dlrection to proceed afresh from the stage of issuingthe bharge sheet and the Memorandumdated: 0110112021. pending disposal of the Writ Petition.
Counsel for thePetitioner:SRIK.R.K.V. PRASAD
Counsel for the RespondentNos. 1 to 3: SRI T'S' VENKATA RAMANA' STANDING COUNSELFORSOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY
Counsel for the RespondentNo'3:------
The Court made thefollowing: ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION No.2067 OF 2O2L
ORDER : per llon 'ble Si Justice A.Raia sheker Reddtt)
This w'rit petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2020 in OA.No.020/0036 1 ot 2O2O passed by rhe Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad along ."vith the consequential Memorandums dated 23.12,2020 and 01 .01.2021 and letter dated 12.Ol .2O2O issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
The only grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authority does not have jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings; and that after passing of the impugned order by the Cerrtral Administrative Tribunal dated 23.11,2O2O in OA.No.02O/0036 1 of 202.0, the self same authority has again initiated disciplinaryr proceedings '"r,hich is not permissible.
;
l-leard learned counsel for respondents who submits that sr.rbsequent to passing ol' order dr.23.1 1.2O2O ',vhich is impugned in this u,rit petition, respondents have ordered fresh enquiry in accordance with law and disputes the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner.
The Central Administrative Tribunal found that the enquiry initiated by the respondents is without jurisdiction and accordingly set aside the same granting liberty to the respondents to initiate
in accordancern'ith lar'r' and fresh disciPlinary Proceedings accordinglythe responclentshar:e ordered lresh enqutry"
If, stiil petitionerhas an1' grievanceregardinginitiationof fresh disciplinaryproceedings,itis open for the petitlonerto challenge thesame on all the grounds avaiiableto him The cause of action inthe presentwrit petition is different'as such' the same cannot beagitatedin this writ petition'
Accordingly,the u'rit petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitionerto challengethe disciplinary proceedingsinitiatedby the respondentssubsequentto passingof order dt 23'11'2O2O in the OA, inaccordance with 1aw, if he is stil1 aggrievedNo order as to costs.
Miscellaneouspetitions,if any, pending in the writ petition
stand ciismissed
I I
SD/. K.SAILESHI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR
,TRUECOPY//
SECTIONOFFICER
To,
HIGH COURT
DATED:0110212021
ORDER
WP.No.2067 ot 2021
HE S r"1
t
-)
()
() 0 0 rEB 2021 cZ
1, -L
* *
,!.s lrr t-aLt,':,
Dismissing the WP. without costs.
5sv COPieA \ )rqa\o-,-r
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can adjudicate on the jurisdiction of the respondent authority to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings after the C.A.T. set aside the initial proceedings.
M. Srinivas
Union of India
Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (operations)
Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer
Sri J.V.Ramanaiah
A. Rajasheker Reddy
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
