Dismissed

The State of a.P., Home Dept., Hyd and 3 Othrs v. Sri Y. Krishna Reddy, Khm Dist. and Ano

Telangana HC28 Oct 2022WP/33050/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order setting aside disciplinary punishment. The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in granting relief to the retired respondent without remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with costs against the petitioners.

The State of a.P., Home Dept., Hyd and 3 Othrs Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

[³³¹⁸ I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

(Special OriginaI Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 33050 OF 2010

¶10

Between:

¶11

The State ofAndhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary to Home Department, Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The lnspector General of Police, Warangal Region, O/o The Director General of Police (Head of Police Force), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy lnspector General of Police, Warangal Range, Government of Andhra Pradesh Warangal.

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, Government of Andhra Pradesh Khammam.

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

1 SRI Y. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, Working as Head Constable No. 1342 of Thirumalayapalem Police Station of Khammam District.

¶18

2 The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and connected with order of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dated: 20.10.2010 rendered in O.A.No. 1221 ot 2008 and^quash or set aside the same.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201o(WPMP. NO:41970 !E2010)

¶22

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 suspend the order dated: 20.10.2010 rendered in O.A.No. 1221 of 2008 by the

¶23

.^{Hon'ble Andhra Prac} esh Adminsitrative Tribunal, Hydearbad^p,rnding disposal of the writ petition

¶24

Counsel for the Petil ioners: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: P. RAVI SHANKER

¶26

Counsel for the Res;rondent No.2: --

¶27

The Court made the bllowing: ORDER

¶28

¶29

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAYARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶30

W.P.No.33050 OF 2010

¶31

ORDER: /Per IJon'blc SriJustice Abhinao.l Kunat Shavili)

¶32

Aggrieved by the order dated. 20.10.2010 passed in O.ANo.1221 of 2008 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hlderabad, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶33

Fleard leamed Govemment Pleader for Sewices-I appearing for the petitioners and Sri P.Ravi Shanlea leamed coursel appearing for the L" respondeff.

¶34

It is the case of the petitioners that the 1., respondent was working as Head Constable and while working as such, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for the alleged gross negligence and dereliction of dwy in not informing the rnatter about taking of a cover containing cash of Rs.60,000/- from a car, to his superion, for which, the 1,, respondent has submiued his explanation. Being not sadsfied vdth the said explanation, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegatiors levelled against the 1,, respondent. After conducting enquiry, the Enquiry

¶35

Officer l,a-s held thar the charge levelled against the 1" responde rt was not proved. Thereafter, the d.r,ciplinary authority has issr.red dissent note and iater, inrpo;ed the punishmt nt of stoppage of one annual mcrenrerlt wfth effect on future incremens and pension and ueated the suspensic n period as leave without pay. fugrieved by the same, thc 1', respondent has preferred appeal anl rtvision and the same were dismissed. Challenging rle said punishnt nt, the 1', respondent has approar:h,:d the Tribunal by filing O.ANo.1221 of 2008. Vithout appreciat:ng any of the contentions raised lry the petitioner;, the Tribunal uide order dated20.10.2Ala' 'rllowed the said^()A bysetting the punishment imposed ailaurst the L', respon Jent.

¶36

Lea ned Govemment Pleader appearing f,rr the petitioner; lud contended that the Tribunal has inter{t:red with the punishment on the ground that the disc.,plinary authoriry has not considered the explanation subrruned by the 1.t r< spondent and no reasons were assignrt while imposing :he punishment. If the Tribunal is of the \i(rw ihat the disciplinary a$horiry has not properly dealt^.r,ith the

I I

I I

/,/

explanation submimed by the 1" respondent, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter back to the petitioners/disciplinary authoriry and the disciplinary authoriry would have passed a reasoned speaking order. Therefore, the order passed bythe Tribunal is contraryto law and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶44

kamed counsel appearing for the 1" respondent had contended that the 1" respondent has retired from service during pendency of the present writ petition and at this point of time, the question of remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority would not arise and the Tribunal has given cogent reasons while sening aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authoriry has assigned any reasons as to u,hy it has come to the conclusion to impose the pr.rnishment with cumulative effect and more so,^q,hen the disciplinary authoricy has issued a dissent notice, the Enquiry Officer has held that rhe charge leveled agairut the 1' respondent was not proved. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in alowing the OA in favour of the 1,'respondent.

Har ing considered the rival sub missic,ns nuL,l,: bv the

¶50

leamed c >unsel on either side, this Court is of the v ew that the Tribt nal has considered the case of tht' 1" tt:r;ponJent

¶51

and has ighdy set asrde the punishment impc,s:cl by'the disciplina ry authority as the dtciplinary authority has not assigned any reasons as to why it has imposed the punrshmr nt of one annual incrcment u,ith cur-nulrtive effect, m, rre so, when the Enquiry Officer has helcl rhat the

¶52

charge le reled against the l't respondent was nc't proved. Therefor,', the Tribunal was^justified in allos,ing dre O.A in favour o: the 1.. respondent. Hence, this Cr,u.rr is not

¶53

inclined t > inter{ere with the order passed bl,the Tiillrnal.

¶54

Acc rr-dingly, the Vrit Petition is dismissecl. fJ:, cos;ts.

¶55

Mis, :ellaneous petitions, if any, pending r;h.rli sr.and

¶56

closecl.

¶57

SD/. N.SRIHARI ASSTSIANIREGlSTRAR //rRUE coPYlt r)b SECTION OFFICER

¶58

To,

¶59

Two CCs to Gl) FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OtlT]

¶60

One CC to P. lUVl SHANKER, Advocate IOPUCI

¶61

Two CD Copie; KKS SW

&sK-

HIGH COUR]'

DATED:2811( l',2022

I <br>c,) .(
R" oI
GT= I j
E$l
...1

¶66

ORDER

¶67

WP.No.33050 of 2010

¶68

DISMISSING^()F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

6
5<br>gc(-

The State of a.P., Home Dept., Hyd and 3 Othrs v. Sri Y. Krishna Reddy, Khm Dist. and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P., Home Dept., Hyd and 3 Othrs v. Sri Y. Krishna Reddy, Khm Dist. and Ano

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

The Secy to Govt. Gad, Hyderabad. Vs Smt.v.Adilaxmi Devi, Hyderabad.

Prl. Secretary, Environment, Forests Dept., Hyderabad and 3 Ot Vs D. Veeraiah, Khammam District and Another

The Chief Executive Officer, Vs B. Shravan Kumar and 2 Others

Syed Abdul Haleem Magrabi, Hyderabad Vs Registrar, A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyd and 3 Oth

Prl.Secy, H.M.F.W.Dept., and Another Vs Dr.D.Noorjahan and Another

G.Ramesh Vs the Govt of A.P and Another