Dismissed

M. Venkateshwarlu v. The High Court for the State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Jan 2022WP/6710/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Scrutiny of a writ petition challenging a disciplinary penalty and subsequent appellate modification. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding the appellate authority acted leniently and noting the petitioner failed to substantiate the claimed defects in natural justice or enquiry proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay no costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions to stand closed.

M. Venkateshwarlu Vs The High Court for… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6710 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Ramulu, Age 45^years, Occ. Superintendent,^{Additional Junior} Civil Judge's Court, Sathupally, Khammam District.

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The High Court for the State of Telangana,^{Representedby its Registrar} (Administration), High Court, at Hyderabad.

¶12

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam.

¶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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction,^{more particularlyone in the nature} of WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records^{relating to Administrative Appealin} High Court Proceedings Order in D^{(D) A. No. 16/2015, C-a (Con) dated 29-07-2016} modifying the proceedings issued by the^{Respondent No. 2 in proceedings order} No. 29lADIV/DCK/dI. 06-05-2014 and Dis. No. 510,^{dated 07-05-2014and} consequently set aside the impugned order^{passed by Respondent No.1 and pass.}

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the Proceedings Order^{in D (D) A. No. 16i2015, C-4 (Con) dated 29-07-} 20.16 issued by the Respondent^{No. 1} ,^{pending disposalof mainwrit Petitionin the} interest of^justice and^pass.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner^: SRI'SREENIVASA^{RAO RAVULAPATI}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents^{: SRI MALUGARI SUDERSHAN (SCFOR THC)}

¶19

The Court made the following^ORDER

¶20

THE^HON'BLETI EC JUSTICE SATIS^HCHANDRASH AND THE HON': tLE SRI^JUSTI cEAB^HINAND s PETITI^{oN No.67loOF202L}

¶21

ORDER:^{(Per Hon )le StiJusticeAbhinanl KumarShauili)}

¶22

This writ^{petitionis filedseeking a writ of Certiorarito call} for the^{recordsrelated to and connectedwith the Administrative} Appeal^{in High Court proceedingsorder in D(D)A No'1612015 C'4} (Con.)^dated '.g.O7.2016,^{modifyingthe proceedingsissuedbv} Nc.2 in^{proceedingsorder C Dis No 2glADM/DCK/} resPondent dt.06.05,2014mdDiS.No.51O,dated07.05.2014,andtoquashor set aside^{the s Lme holding it as arbitrary and iilegal'}

¶23

Rao,^{counselforthe} 2. Heard^iri RavuiaPati^Srlntvasa Standing^Counselfor petitioner,^{an 1 Sri MalugariSudarshan'} Telangana^{Hil h Court'}

¶24

It has^{b:encontendedby the petitionerthat he is rvorking as} Superintende-It^{with the 2'd respondent'While he was rvorking as} JuniorAssistantinMobileCoultatKhammamduring2006,the learned^{Magi stratedirected him to attend to the duty of handling} process,^{thepetitioner had} copy^{applice lions During the said} to the^{CoPYing Section l'e} ' furnished^{tl e originaldocuments} C.A.No.8601^{of 2008 and it was accordinglynoted in the docket} sheet^{of the case records'However' due to over sight' he could not} round^{off tle said C A'No'8601of 2o08 in the docket sheet after} receiving^{tL e originaldocuments and placingthem back in the} case^{recor ls} The disciplinary^{authority/ District Judgehad} said action^{of the petitioner as misconductand} construed^he against^the Petltioner^{bY issuing} initiated^{di'cip1inaryproceedings} dated.^{02 02'2013' The Petitioner} a charge^{rr emo uide Proceedings}

¶25

¶26

HCJ & AKS,J W P No.67t0 of202l

¶27

¶28

has submitted a detailed explanation denying the said charge. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority had conducted a regular enquiry and after conducting deta ed enquiry and for the proven misconduct in the departmental enquiry, the discip.linary authority was pleased to impose major penalty of reversion from the post of Superintendent (Category-III) to that of Junior Assistant uide orders dated 06.05.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had prelerred appeal to the appellate authority. However, the appellate authority uide orders, dated, 29.OT .20 16, was pleased to modify the punishment of reversion to a lower post of Junior Assistant from the post of Superintendent (Category-Ill) to that of stoppage of two annua.l increments with cumulative effect, by taking a lenient view. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Rules and no opportunity was given to the petitioner during the enquiry. The Iearned counsel also contended that the disciplinary authority has not conducted enquiry in accordance with Rule 20 of the CCA Rules and imposed a major penalty of reversion to the post of Junior Assistant from the post of Superintendent (Category-ill). The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate authority had also failed to appreciate that the enquiry was not properly conducted and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove his innocence in the departmental enquiry and the appellate authority had modified the punishment of reversion to a lov/er post of Junior Assistant from the post of Superintendent (Category_lil) to that of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative

¶30

¶31

¶32

llc.l & AKS..l \ .P.No 6710^{o l2021}

¶33

effect.^{Therefol e, counsel contendedthat appropriate orders be} passed in thir^{writ petitionby setting aside the modified} punishment im^{rosed by the appellateauthorityuide ordersdated} 29.O7.2016.

¶34

Standing Counsel^{appearingfor the respondentshad} contended^{that the disciplinary authoriry has conducted a detailed} enquiry and^{ev :ry opportunitywas given to the petitioner to prove} hisinnocenceinthedepartmentalenquiry.StandingCounsel further conten(^{ed that the petitionerhas not taken the plea before} the disciplina4^{authoritynor before the appellateauthority that he} was not^{given an opportunity during the enqurryand also the} petitioner has^{rot stated what prejudice has been caused to him in} not following^{t he principlesof naturaljusticeAdmittedly' in the} instant case,^{e /ery opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove} his innocence^{and the enquiry was conducted as per the CCA} Rules and^{a1s o the petidonerhas never raised about denial of} principles of^{ratural justice and the petitioner is raisingthese} contentlons^{fc I the first time in the plesentwrit petition Already} the appeilate^{luthority has taken a lenient vierv and modifiedthe} punishment^{lherefore,thereare no merits and the u'rit petitionis} liable to be^{di: missed.}

¶35

This Co lrt,^{having considered the rival submissions made by} learned coun;e1^{lor respective parties,is of the consideredview} that the appe^{late authorityhas takena lenient view and modified} the^{punishm, Int of reversionto a lowerpost of JuniorAssistant} from the^{post of Superintendent(Category-lll) to that of stoppageof} two annual^{i :rcrementswith cumulativeeflect uide orders dated} 29.O7 .2016^{a nd no further interference is called for' Moreoverthe}

¶36

¶37

HCJ & AKS..I w l) No 6? l0 ol202l

¶38

petitioner except contending that^{the principles of naturaljustice} were not followed^{and the enquiry was not conductedin} accordance^{with Rules,no where he could point out as to how the} principles of natural^{justice were not followed and as to how the} enquiry was not^{conductedin accordancewith Rules' In the} absence of any^{defect in the enquiryproceedingsnor in the} disciplinary^{proceedings,this Court cannot interfere with the} impugned orders.

¶39

Accordingly, the^{writ petition is dismissed'No order as to}

¶40

costs.

¶41

Pending miscellaneous^{petitions, if any,shall stand closed'}

¶42

SD/.P.P ASSBYTilf"-EI'EFRRX

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

The Registrar^{(Administration),HighCourt for the State of Telangana'High} Court, at^HYderabad.

¶47

ih.^princioat District^{and Sessions Judge' Khammam} . . ^. cj;""'ib iJt[i.^{inLEr.rrVAsA-inonAvumpArl Advocate[oPUc]} - -. 4 il;66 io sni.^{r,,lnr-utnnisuoEnsiAN(SC FOR THC) Advocate [oPUc]} q Two CD CoPies 6 One Spare^coPY SA Y

HIGH COURT

DATED:19101121t22

ORDER

2-f.t- 1tE STal '
o
/..,l
Bl f tl Il22 i
Ii

¶53

WP.No.6710 of 2021

¶54

DISMISSING OI THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS"S

M. Venkateshwarlu v. The High Court for the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Venkateshwarlu v. The High Court for 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jahangir Pasha Sk Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Shetti Ramaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Kalvakuntla Tejeshwar Rao and Another Vs M/s Srija Infrastructures and 7 Others

Mohamed Abdul Nayeem Zakee Vs The State of Telengana

Goldripe International Pvt. Ltd. Vs The state of Telangana

Logfresh Biotechnology Pvt. Ltd. Vs The state of Telangana.