The High Court held that the writ petition challenging a departmental enquiry became infructuous due to a lack of material or irretrievable loss of evidence, and dismissed it as such without costs.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous 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.
[3300 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2945 OF 2011
Between:
Y. Sivakumar, S/o. late Y. Shankar, Aged 55 years, Occ. Suspended Employee, Rl/o. PIot No. 29, H.No. 16-2-752121129, Triveni Nagar Colony, Gaddiannaram' Hyderabad - 5oo 060
...pETrrroNER
AND
...RES'.NDENTS
Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, theHigh Court maybe pleased to lssue a writ, order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of theRespondents 1 to3 in proposingto jold a departmental enquiry against thepetitioner under rule 25of Generallnsurance (conduct, Discipline and appeal) Rules, 1975 vide their office letter in reference No HO/PERS/CDA/980, dt. 31 .12.2010 as amounting to highly arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal and consequently to call for lhe records in fileNo. HO/PERS/CDA/980, dl. 31 .12.2010 andquash the same.
l.A. NO: 2OF 2011(WPMP. NO: 3660 OF 2011)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased stay departmental enquiry asproposed by Respondents 1 to 3 underrule 25 of General lnsurance (conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 against the petitioner herein; pending final disposal of the main writ petitioner.
1
l-A. NO: 1OF 2012(WPMP. NO 1396 0F 2012)
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay of departmental enquirygranted in WPMP No. 3660 of 2011 as proposed by the Respondents 1 to 3 against the petitroner herein under Rule 25 of General lnsurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975; pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP.NO:29772 OF 2013
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 direct the Learned Registry of the above Hon'ble Court to list the WPMP No.3660 of 2011 in WP No.2945 of 2011 before the appropriate court.
l.A. NO: I QF 2q1(WVMP.NO: 3081OF 2011)
Between:
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS
AND Y. Sivakumar, S/o. late Y. Shankar, Aged 55 years, Occ: Suspended Employee, FJo. Plot No. 29, H.No. 16-2-752121129, friveni Nagar Colony, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad - 500 060
...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
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 vacate the interim order granted in WPMP No. 3660 of 2011 in WP No. 2945 ot 201'l dated 15-02-2011.
Counsel for the Petitiongr: SRI A. SUDHAKAR REPRESENTING FOR SRI GOPALA KRISHNA KALANIDHI
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
TI-IE HONOURABLE SRT IUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
ORDER:
WRIT PETIT ION No.29450F 201'1,
Today when the matter is taken up for consideratiorl Sri. A. Sudhakar, learned counsel representing Sri. Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the subject maiter of this writ petition has become inrrucfuous.
As a seq uel the miscellaneous petitions, if an1,, pcuding in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
,--a
SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTATf,LREGISTRAR T C:]R /
//TRUE COPYII
/
SECTEN OFFICER
To, 1. One CC to SRI GOPALA fElS.tlN4 KALAN|DH|, Advocate tOpUCl 2. One CC to SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS, Advocare tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies
BN GJ
HIGH COURT
DATED:1911012023
ORDER
WP.No.2945 of 2O11
1$ e STATG. oA
(
q
'l
IJo 2 1 N 0 i 7utJ o
t'
D Es r C
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS \ \
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to dispose of the writ petition regarding arbitrary departmental enquiry in light of irretrievable loss of evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Y. Sivakumar
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.
Nagesh Bheemapaka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
