Two judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the order rejecting the petitioner's representation for regularization of suspension period pending outcome of a criminal case. Court held wrong mention of rule not vitiative.
Writ petition dismissed without costs.
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 COURTFORTHE STATEOFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THEETGHTHDAY OFFEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDANDTWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLETHE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND
THE HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT P ETITION NO: 2546 0F 2021
Between:
M. Krishna' S/oLate[,4.Vittal,aged about 45 years,. wo,rkingas Examinerof Copies, (under suspension) High court'Ei:'d;;t';Jinyderaoaoinowallottedto theHigh io,],i tor tn!-st.tebf T6langana, Hyderabad'
...PETITIONER
AND
The Registrar(Administration), High Court of Judicature'Hyderabad
..,RESPONDENT
g.,'**l:Ep,ru*ffi
lA NOiI OF 2021
;ar#1;x'irs ffi**,gil,f ,i";,".[";."".l#,[:'x$.+ffi
Counselfor the Petitioner : SRI'G'U'R'C'PRASAD KUMARKAPOOR (SC FOR TSHC) Counselfor the *""0-o""l:-"*I'ANAND
TheCourtmade the followingOROER
L
THE IION'BLE TEE CHIEF J(,STICE SA?ISH CIIANDRA SIIARII[A AI{D THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SIIAVILI
ON No. 546 of 2 2t
ORDER: pet the Hon'bte rhe Chief Jusnce sotish Chandtu Sha.,ro.)
The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:
to rssue a writ ot direcdon more particularly one rn rhe narure of writ of c^:.lott ro order in R.D.E.rH ceJl,;:Til"":|jfor the reiords perra.rning ,?iilgl'rf.;;l#t"5iil'i:ffi :[f,1* ##iJ",fl,..,?ti,; Ll:;.,,% xx i["-ilJ [.." # ii
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed in the year ,nno ^. ^.,_ :t*" as Attender and was promoted as Examiner of copies ,r'"* "'o the year 2o12. He was wr court of Judicature at in the High and on accounorking criminal case i'6'' "t""otttoto No'143 or 2017,"' j:t":r:'":':::": section 420 read withne ection 511 IPc and sec t read with section z of the Specifir :d Bank Notes cessatio' :f 'oo' Liabilities Act' 2017' he was praced under srlsp6nsion by 21.ro.2orz.The undisp otott ot"o suspension was ."rou,"to facts also make it 'a,* on oz 'o2 2019' tl"'::,H":: contention is rhat he was ced under suspension o of registration of a criminr """tand as clause ,", "r:;;"""; Terangana civir Services ,.' )lassificatr.on, Control ed Appea.l) Rules,
:
2
1991, was omirred wirh pff-^_ " tt"t 24'08'1ss4. he courd not have been praced ,,,0". "u"r",lo::.
This Court has < *t" provisions as contained'*t'll'l through the statutory m Rule 8 leproduced as under: Rule g(r)(4 to (d) are
t
It is true that Ru, tt"t", was omitted with effect from 24.og.lgg4,but the ,u", ,'r that clause (d) certainly provides for suspension o, " "orr","-'ns :nment servant from service even if the offence for which he was charged does not have bearing on the discharge of his official duties.
Learned counsel has argued before this Court that the petitioner has been placed under suspension under Rule g(1)(c), which is not in existence.
In the considered opinion of this Court, mere wrong mentioning of a provision of law will not inva-lidate tJ.e order of suspension. Rule g(d) certainly provides for suspension on account of a criminal case. In the present case, the petitioner has already been reinstated and therefore, it is only a{ter the criminal case is
3
finalized,he v*1 have an opportunityto prefer an appropriate applicationinrespect of regularizationofsuspensionperiod dependingupon the outcome of the criminalcase' This Court does not findany reason to interferewith the impugned orderby which the representationof the petitionerhas been rejected'
The writpetition is accordingly dismissed'
Misceilaneouspetitions, if any, shall stand closed. There
sha1l beno order as to costs'
SD/.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR h/ I/TRUECOPY'/ SECTIONOFFICER To i ffi:Ed Hth\H.litifltrhl"h[lt.r#gt[;T;:::" "' " 4. Two TwoCD Copies'Copies'
SA BS
I
HIGH COURT
DATEOt08l02l2022
ORDER
WP.No.2546 of2021
1 HE S14
1*
k
c
1J 25 ii: ?r12
DISMISSINGTHEW.P
WITHOUT COSTS.
^.4
P/JL
!t
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner placed under suspension due to criminal proceedings is entitled to quash the order rejecting his claim for regularization of suspension.
Whether mere wrong mention of a provision of law in the order of suspension invalidates the order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Krishna
The Registrar (Administration), High Court of Judicature Hyderabad
Satish Chandra Sharma
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
