Disposed

Vasam Surender v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Apr 2022WP/16619/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a writ petition filed by a government employee challenging the inaction of the disciplinary tribunal. The Court directed the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to expedite and conclude the inquiry within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent No. 2 to expedite the enquiry and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

Vasam Surender Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

t:'

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16619 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vasam Surender, S/o. V. Veera Swamy, Age 57^years, Occ. Govt.^Employee, rlo. Flat No.3505, Srila Towers, Hydernagar, Kukatpally,^{Hyderabad-85 (TS).} 7

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep by its Chief Secretary, Telangana State, TS

¶13

(- Secretariat Hyderabad

¶14

The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Telangana^{rep by its Secretary,} Chandra Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by declaring the action of the^{respondents in not conducting} enquiries in the disciplinary^{proceedingsinitiated againstthe petitionervide} Charge framed in T.E.C.No.67B of^{2013on the file of Tribunalfor Disciplinary} 7/proceedings,^{TelanganaState,Hyderabad for the incident pertains to the year} " 2011 as illegal arbitrary and in violation of existing specific^{instructionsof the} government for early conclusion and as well as the^judgment of the^{Hon'ble Apex} Court reported in P.V. Mahadevan^{v. M.D. Tamil Nadu HousingBoardl(2005)6} Supreme Court Cases 636 and accordingly^{set aside the sameconsequently} direct the respondents to conclude the^{disciplinary proceedings in termsof} G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration^{(Services-C) Departmentdated} ,o1l11I2OOB on the same analogy of orders^passed in W.P No.20872^{of 2018 dated} ,' ZlrctZOn failing which the charges deemed to be quashed and the petitioner is exonerated from the charges.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High courtmay be pleased to direct}

I i I i I I I l

the respondent no.1^{to considerthe representation dated31212022of the petitioner} pending disposal of the main writ^petition.

¶23

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶24

Between:

¶25

Vasam Surender, S/o.^{V. Veera Swamy,Age 57 years, Occ. Govt. Employee'} r/o. Flat No.3505, Srila^{Towers,Hydernagar,Kukatpally, Hyderabad-85 (TS)'}

¶26

... Petitioner

¶27

AND

¶28

The State of Telangana,^{Rep by its Chief Secretary,Telangana State, TS} Secretariat Hyderabad

¶29

The Tribunal for Disciplinary^{Proceedings,Telanganarep by its Secretary,} Chandra Vihar, NamPallY,^HYderabad

¶30

...Respondents

¶31

The State of Telangana,^{Rep by its PrinicipalSecretary,Home Department,} Secretariat, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State.}

¶32

The Director General^{of Anti Corruption Bureau , Telangana State,Road No} 12, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad.

¶33

The Deputy Superintendent^{of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau ,Karimnagar'}

¶34

... ProPosed ResPondents

¶35

Petitidn under order^{16-4 of Writ Rulesprayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High court may be} pleased to implead the^proposed respondents^{No 3 to 5 as respondents No.3 to 5} in main writ^petition as^{well as l.A.No.1of 2022 in order to effectually and} completely to adjudicate^{upon all the questions in the petition,in the interest of} justice.

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.^{MASTAN VALI SHAIK}

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR GENERAL^{ADMINISTRATION}

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI^{M.V.RAMA RAO, AGP for HOME for} GP FOR HOME

¶39

The Court made the following Order:

¶40

,.ly

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶42

WRIT PETITION No.16 6 L9 of 2022

¶43

ORDER

¶44

Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not concltrding disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in T.D. Case No.t578 of 2013 on t.he lilc of 1'ribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Tetangana State, Hyderabad.

¶45

The learned Assistani^(iovernment Pleader for IJome, ON instructions, submits tirat conclusion of disciplinary proceedings may take about six months time

¶46

In view of the same, the ^,ril. petil.ion is disposed of, directing the respondent No.? to expedite the cnquiry in T.E. Case No.678 of 2013 ancl conclude the proceedings u,ithin a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy ol this order.^'lhe miscellaneous applications pending if any, sha11 stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Sd/- T.TIRUIMA DEVI ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR // TRUE COPY // 6D SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

1 TJ" hief Secretary, State of Telangana, TS Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 THe Secretary, Tribunal for Di sciplinary Proceedings, Telangana Chandra Vihar Nampally, Hyderabad ? or\e CC to SRl. IUASTAN VALI SHAIK Advocate loPUCl 4 lwo CCs to GP FOR GAD,H|gh Court for the State of Telangana lourl E TWo CCs to GP FOR HO IVE,High Court for the State of Telanga na tourl 6 Tvto CD Co pies. 7 o e Spare Copy. GB \9

HIGH COURT

DATED:^28-04-2022

ORDER

wP NO.16619^{0F 2022}

¶54

:::-
//^ ttr- <br>,//o.
//*'
ia
ii: /.J 11 i (_ .,<br>TI
u;
rn,i/
irry t...:/
\ 1rtr

¶55

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

Vasam Surender v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasam Surender 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Dodle Vinod Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mukkola SaiKiran Rajveer Vs The State level Police Recruitment Board

Rampally Naresh Vs Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd. and 2 Others

V. Madhulatha and 63 Others Vs Telangana Public Service Commission and 9 Others

B.Samatha and 7 others Vs Telangana State Public Service Commission

P. Sathyam Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others