Dismissed

P.Venkat Reddy v. High Court of Judicature at Hyd, and 2 Others

Telangana HC2 Jul 2021WP/26136/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The court observed that since the inquiry was concluded and the petitioner was dismissed, with a separate appeal pending, no issue survives for adjudication in the present petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition along with pending applications was disposed of with no order as to costs.

P.Venkat Reddy Vs High Court of Judicature at Hyd… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 26136 OF 2015

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

P.Venkat Reddy, S/o.Narayana Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ Assistant Registrar US High Courl of Judicature Hyderabad R/o.H.No.8-8-71 Road No.B Green Park Colony Saroornagar Hyderabad S00 035

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 f iSh^{C^o-u1of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the} State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Registrar General, High-Court premises, Hyderabad.

¶11

2 The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State Of Andhra Pradesh, High C6urt Premises, Hyderabad.

¶12

3 The Reglstrar Adniinistration, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State Of Andhra Pradesh, High'Court Premises, 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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings vide Order R.D.E.(H.C.S) No.8 & 8A!201s-Estt., dated 30.7.2015 alleging misconduct under Rule-3 of A.P.Civil Services Conduct Rules 1964, as illegal, arbitrary, with non-application of mind and without jurisdiction and set aside the same.

¶15

WPMP. NO: 33949 OF 2015

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order R.D E. (H C.S )

¶17

No. B& 8A120,1S-Estt,^{dated: 30-07-2015issuedby the respondentto the} petitioner, pending disposal^{of main writ petition'}

¶18

WPMP. NO: 33^{950 0F 2015}

¶19

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to} trant^{interim direction directing the respondentsto reinstate the petitioner into} iervice,^{pending disposalof main writ petition and pass such other order or} orders as it maY deem^fit.

¶20

WPMP. NO: 3673^{5 0F 2015}

¶21

Petition under Section^{151 cPC praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the High Court may be-pleasedto} lmpfeaO the^{petitioner heiein as a party Respondent No:4 in this writ Petitionand} dismiss the writ Petition^{with costs.}

¶22

WPMP. NO: 3 9224^{0F 20',l,5}

¶23

Petition under section^{151 cPc praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court may,b_e-pleasedto} amend the main^{relief pray.edcontained in the above writ petition FoRM:}

¶24

,,For the reasons stated above it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of^{Mandamus,or any other appropriatewrit order or} direction, declaring^{the action of the Respondentsin initiating disciplinary} proceedings vide 6rder R.D.E.(H^{C.S) N9'8} t^8A/201S-Estt '^{dated 30 7 20'l 5} atteging m'isconduct^{under Rule-3of A.P.Civil servicesconduct Rules 1964,as} rlleg"al,"arbitrary,^{non-application of mind and withoutlurisdiction and set aside the} sarie and^pasi such^{other order or orders as the Hon'ble court maydeem fit and} proper in the circumstances^{of the case"}

¶25

¶26

,.For the reasons stated above it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased be to issue a writ of^{Mandamus,or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,} declaring the action^{of the Respondents in initiating disciplinary proceedings vide} oio", nlo.e.(H.C,S)^{No.B & 84/2015_Estt., dated 30.7.2015 alteging misconduct} under Rule-3 of^{A.P.Civil Services conduct Rules 1964, and the proceedings} order: RDE^{(HCS) No.8/2015-Estt, dt.05 02 2015 issued suspendingthe} petitioner, as iliegal, arbitrary,^{with non-applicationof mind and withoutjurisdiction} and set aside the same^{and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble court} may deem fit and^{properin the circumstances of the case"'}

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.^{P. VENKAT REDDY,PARTY lN PERSON}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI.P RAVIPRASAD,SC FOR HC}

¶29

The Court made the^following:

¶30

Itenr No.21

¶31

t'H[ l{osl}LI- TIIE C,TIIEF^{JT- STICE HI}IA KOHLI} ANT) .THE HON'I}LE SIiI JUS'TICE I}. VIJAYSEN I{EDDY

¶32

ORDER: Ocr the llou'hla^{rhaChief ,lustice Hinta Kohli)}

¶33

L The present petition^{was filed by the petitioner in August, 2015} challenging the disciplinary^{proceedingsinitiatedagainsthim vide} order dated 30.07.201^5.

¶34

Leamed counsel for the respondents^{submits that much water} has been flown under the bridge by now.^{The enquiry proceedingsare} over and the Disciplinary Authority^{has passedan orderdated} 04.01.2017, dismissing the petitioner^{from service.}

¶35

3 'lhe petitioner, wl.ro appears in person, states that aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the^{Disciplinary Autholity'on} 04.01.2017, hc has tlled a^{writ petition, r'egistered as W.P.No.29039} of 2019, which is^pending adjudication.

¶36

ln view of the aforesaid developments,^{nothing furthersurvives}

¶37

for adjudication in the^{present petition,whichis disposed of along}

¶38

with the pending applications, if any

¶39

¶40

SD/.8.^SATYAV ASSISTAN^TREGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY//

¶41

SECTION^OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

1 The Registrar^{General' High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the Stateof} i;;;# High^{court Premtses Hvderabad} - Jt-nnon'u^{Pradesh'at Amaravathi'Guntur}

¶44

2 The R-egistrar^Generaln'n'n ""'n District

¶45

¶46

¶47

ar Administra^{tion, High Court of Judicature atHydera bad for the}

¶48

3 The Registr Co urt^Premises ,^HYderabad Occ^Assistant State^{of Tel} angana,^High /o.NaraYana ReddY,

¶49

4.PReg.Venkat istrar^{US RedHig} dy h (PartYCourt of in JudicatuPerson ),Sre eraba^HY derabad^{d 500 035R/o.H.No.B} 871^{RoadNo B} Saroo rnagar^HYd

¶50

Gree n Park^ColonY

¶51

q One^{CC to Sri. P Raviprasa d, SC forHCTOPUCI} 6 . Two^{CD CoPies'} 7 . One^sParecoPY

PM "-vNS

-_---:'

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210712021

ORDER

WP.No.26136^{of 2015}

¶60

STATef
of,r) 1ql]tm
i
I
OEspAl

¶61

Disposing of the^WP. p

P.Venkat Reddy v. High Court of Judicature at Hyd, and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Venkat Reddy v. High Court of Judicature at Hyd, and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Shravanthi Vs D.Dharma Prakash

N. Suman Kalyanji Vs The High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad and another

Bakulesh Trambaklal Shah Vs Videocon Realty and Infrastructure Limited and 12 Others

The State of Telangana and 3 Others Vs M/S Shantha Sriram Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Gopala Ramudu Vs City Civil Court, Hyderabad

M/s.Murad Fuel Station Vs The Station House Officer and 2 others