Dismissed

The Superintendent of Police v. B. Mallikarjuna Rao

Telangana HC13 Sept 2023WA/849/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the writ appeal filed by police officials against the order of the Single Judge. The Court upheld the regularization of the appellant-suspension period as spent on duty, as the State Government had previously set aside the punishment imposed on the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Regularization of applicant-suspension period (05.12.2007 to 07.03.2010) as on duty was upheld; writ appeal dismissed with no costs.

The Superintendent of Police Vs B… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO}

¶6

WRIT AP PEAL NO: 849 OF 2023

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the^{Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order} Daled 22t 1 1 12022, in W .P. No.²¹ 950^{ot 2017 on the file of the High Court.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Superintendent of Police,^{Nalgonda, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶10

The Diiector General and^{lnspector General of Police, TelanganaState,}

¶11

Hyderabad.

¶12

The Principal Secretary to^{Government,Home Department,State of} Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶14

AND

¶15

B. Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o Vulligaiah,^{Aged About53 years, Occ. PC No. 1810'} Gurrampode Police Station,^{NalgondaDistrict.}

¶16

...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under section 151^{cPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in suppo( of^{the petition, the Highcourt may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of the^{ordersdated.2211112022passed in w.P. No.21950} of 2017 by the learned Single^{Judge pendingdisposal of the main Writ Appeal'}

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI^{M.V.RAMA RAO, SPL. GP FORSERVICESI} Counsel for the Respondent:^{SRI A.TIRUPATHI GOUD}

¶20

The Court made the following:^JUDGMENT

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶23

W.A.N o.849 of 2023

¶24

JUDGMENT:^{()erl loa'b/e Sn} lartte^{..1bbinand.KmarShuaili)}

¶25

.\ggricved bv the order dated 22.11.2022 passed in W.I'].No.21950 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge, thc presenr \r,rir appeal has been .filed.

¶26

Hcard Sri M.'. Rama Rao Icarned Snecial I Gor,ernmenr Pleader appearing for rhe appcllants and Sn ..^'l rrupathi Goud, learncd counsel appearing ior rhc respcindcnr.

¶27

It is the case of the appellants that the responden[ was working as A.R. Police Consrable and larcr, convcrred to Civil Policc Constable during 2014 and urhilc rvorking as such, the respondent was involr.cd in crrnrinal case viz., Cr.No.2(rB of 2001 for the offenccs pr-rnishable under Sections 498-A & 301 IPC o[

¶28

)

¶29

Nalgonda-Il Town Police Starion. Since the respondent was involved in cnminai case, the appellants have placed him uncier suspension ilde order 27.11.2001 , pending disciplinary ptoceedings. Subsequently, the suspension order was revoked on 24.02.2010.^'Ihereafter, rhe disciplinary authoriry has iniriated disciplinary proccedings agairrst thc respondent and after conducting a detailed enquiry and for the proven misconducr, Lhe appcllants havc imposccl rhc punishment of sroppase of one incremenr wirh cumularir-e effect ajde proceedings dated 0tJ.t)7.2010. Aggdeved by the saici order o[ punishment, thc rcspondent has preferred an appeal beforc the appellate aurhorirv and the appellate authority has rejected hrs casc uide order dated 27.10.2010. Chailenging rhe same, rhc respondenr has preferred a revision bcfore the revisional authoriry and the revisional

¶30

¶31

authoriq/ has aiso dismissed the same uide proceedings dated 13.05.2011. Later, the respondenr has preferred

¶32

mercy peritlon before the State and the State has set aside rhe punishmenr irnposed against the respondent uide G.O.Rt.No. 7670, dared 13.09.2012. After setting aside thc punishmenr, thc respondent has submitted a rcprcsentation to thc State t<; treat the suspension period as^'spent on dury', but the same \p.as rejected uide order dared 24.05.2016. Agg-rieved by the said rejecuon, rhe rcspondenr has approached this Court by frling W.P.No.21950 of 2017. The learned Single Judge uide order dated 22.11.2022 allouzed the wrir petrrion by setrng aside the rcjection order dared 24.05.2016 and directed the appellants to regularize the suspension period from05.12.2007 ro 07.03.20'10 as 'on dury' for ail purposes including rhe arrears of pay and allowances,

¶33

¶34

lncrements zrnd promotion erc in retls of FR 54(8)(4), without appreciating anv oF rhc conrenrions raised by the appellants. Hence, the pre sent u-rit appeal is filed.

¶35

04 I-earned Spccial Government Pleader appearing for

¶36

the appellants had contcnded thar appropriare orders be passed in thc rvrit appeal by se tting asidc thc order passed by thc iearncd Single judgc.

¶37

Learned counscl appearing for thc respondent had contendeci that the punishn-rent imposed against the respondenr by rhc discipJrnary authoritr, was se[ aside by the State while entcrtaining ll-rercv pe ution uide G.O.Rt.No.1670, dated 13.09.2012 and rvhen once the punishment was ser aside, the lcarned Single -[udge was justified in hoiciing thar the respondenr is entitled to treat the suspension period as^.speot on dun,, in terms of

¶38

)

¶39

, I

¶40

FR 54(BX4). Therefore, there are no merirs in rhe writ appeal and rhe same is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

I-Iar.ing considered the rival submissions made by thc learned counsel on either side, this Courr is of the considered view that when once the State Government has ser aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authorirv uide G.O.Ms.No.1670, dated 13.09.2012, rhe lcarned Single Judgc was justified in allowing the OA in [avour o[ the rcspondenr as per trR 5a@)(a), anct rhercFore rhe rcspondent is entitled to reat the suspcnsion period as 'spent on dury,. f-herefbre, rhis Court is not incl_ined to interfere wirh the order passed by rhe learned Single Judge.

¶42

01 . Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No COS IS-

¶43

¶44

Miscellaneous peririons, i[ ani,, pendrng shall srand

¶45

ciosed.

¶46

SD/.^{B. SATYAVATHI} DEPUTY^REGIST

¶47

//TRUE^COPY// SECTIO oFFICER

¶48

To 1. Two CCs to^{GP FOR SERVICES-I'High Court for the State of Telangana'at}

¶49

2 8'"t"tt#th:uo1'u"o-'GouD'AdvocateloPUCl 3 Two CD^CoPies

PSK.

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATE D : 1 310912023

JUDGMENT

WA.No.849 of 2023

. .z- ---::j_ =:-- r-,.:: <br>^"fiTt
<br>l.-,
\i $'L\i')
,\o

¶58

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS.

¶59

@qE

¶60

The Superintendent of Police v. B. Mallikarjuna Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintendent of Police v. B. Mallikarjuna Rao

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 Sandhya Rani Vs The State of Telangana

S. Venu Vs T. Raghavender Reddy

The Telangana State Tourism Development Corporation Limited Vs Sabbu Rajamouli

A. Venkat Ram Vs T.S. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

A. Venkat Ram Vs T.S. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

T.Ebenezer, Vs The Indian Bank