Dismissed

Mir Mohammed Ali, v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Nov 2023WP/30343/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed challenging a repatriation order and seeking prohibition of disciplinary action. Held that repatriation does not require prior notice and it is the parent department's jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. Petition dismissed as it lacked merits at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Mir Mohammed Ali, Vs State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

1321s I

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 30343 OF 2023

¶8

Between

¶9

[/lir lVohammed Ali, S/o. Mir Ahmed Ali, Aged 53 years, Occ. Sanitary Supervisor, R/o. 8-4-369/C l1-11737 , Type-|, NRR Puram Colony Site ll, Borabanda, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District - 500018. WC: Golconda, Hyderabad District'

¶10

...pETrroNER

¶11

ANO

¶12

State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary Health, lt/edical and Family Welfare (G) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA&UD)Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by^its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Telangana State, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased lo issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the action of 3rd Respondents in issuing order vide 1r.No.339020/SANITATION/GHMC|2023, dated. 18.10.2023 as null, void and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 and 4 not to take any disciplinary action against lhe^petitioner.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

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 stay the implementation of order vide Lr.No-339020/ SANITATION/ GHTVC/2023, dated'l . 18.1O.2023 issued by 3rd Respondent,^pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HARISUGHANDH.B Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1^& 4: GP^FOR SERVICES^ll Counsel for the Respondent No.2:^GP FOR SERVICES-||I Counsel for the Respondent No.3:^SRI T.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO, SC^FOR GHMC

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADH,AVI DEVI

¶23

W.P.No.3O343 of 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ petition is {iled seeking a Writ Of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing notice vide letter dated 1g. .O.2O23 as null, void ald arbitrar5r ald consequently tc, direct the respondents not to take aly disciplinary p roceedings against the petitioner and to pass such othor order or orders.

¶26

Brief lacts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed under respondent No.4 and thereafter, he was sent on foreign services to GHMC as a Sanitar5r Siupervisor i.e., respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 issued order dated lB.lO.2023 repatriating the petitioner and others to their parent department and requested the Director of Public Hea-lth and Farnily Welfare, TS-respondent No.4 herein to take necessary action by initiating disciplinary action against the inclividua_ls for their poor performance arld for showing negligence

in discharge of their duties. Challenging the said order, the present Writ^petition is hled.

¶31

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on ieave during the period for which allegations are made against the petitioner for his insubordination and arrogance. Therefore, according to him, allegations against him are without any basis.

¶32

Learned Government pleader for Services-Il appearing for respondents No. 1 and 4, learned Governemnt Pleader for Services-Ill appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. T. Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.3, are also heard.

¶33

Having regard to the fact that the order dated I4.1O.2O23 is only repatriation of the petitioner to his parent departrnent and no notice is required for such repatriation, this Court does not hnd any illegality in the said orci-er.^'As regards the prayer of the petitioner

¶34

¶35

l i I

¶36

to grant stay of discipiinary proceedings allainst the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion theLt it is for the parent department to take action ap;ainst the petitioner and the parent departrnent is yet to initiate action against the petitioner. Therefore, since, no notice has been issued by respondent No.4 to the petitioner, this Court, at this stage, cannot direct the respondents not to take any action. In view of the sarne, this Writ Petition is devoid of merits ald is Iiable to be dismissed.

¶37

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is clismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendirrg in this

¶39

Writ Petition, sha,ll stand closed.

¶40

SD/-T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGI9TRAR L'.1 SI=CTIONOFFICER

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

To,

¶43

One CC to SRI HARISUGHANDH.B,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-Il,^{High Courtfor the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶45

Triro CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-Ill,^{High Courtfor the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶46

Ohe CC to SRI T.CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO, SC^FORGHIVIC [OPUC]

¶47

Two CD Copies PSK. 5- BS^C,

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:0211112023

ORDER

WP.No.3O343 ot²⁰²³

rtt E STAT e
,(
-) 0 2 l{0I ?$8 ;i
*,:rt t"'

¶54

DISMISSING THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

Mir Mohammed Ali, v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mir Mohammed Ali, v. 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

Vaddepally Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

R.P. Rao Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Garla Sreenu Vs The State of Telangana

Ch.Vijaya Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Akarapu Srinu Vs The State of Telangana

Sangarsu Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana