Allowed

G.Sathish Kumar, Warangal Dist v. the Dy.Inspector General of Police,and 4 Others

Telangana HC12 Jul 2023WP/31039/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order. The Court held that since the Tribunal set aside punishment for inordinate delay, the issue of re-initiating enquiry arose not, and set aside the liberty granted to the State to conduct a fresh oral enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; portion of Tribunal's order granting liberty to conduct fresh enquiry set aside; consequential proceedings quashed.

G.Sathish Kumar, Warangal Dist Vs the Dy.Inspector… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I l ! I i I i I

¶2

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶3

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

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 31039 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

G.Sathish (qmar, S1o, Sarangapani, aged about 43 years, Occu: Sublnqpe@f of Police, Police Training College, Karimnagar,Karimhagar district, native R/o H.No. 20-9-7, Middle Fort, Warangal, Warangal District^-

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Deputy lnspector General of Police, Karimnagar Range, Karimnaga - 505 001.

¶13

The Deputy lnspector General of Police, Warangal Range, at Warangal - 506 oo2.

¶14

The lnspector General of Police, North Zone, A.P., Hyderabad - 500 OO4

¶15

The Govemment of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principle, Secretary, Home Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad - 5OO O22.

¶16

The A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, Rep. by its, Registrar

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 call for records relating to O.A. No. 10090/2011, on the fib of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari and quash part of the order in so far as and to the extent that respondents are not precluded from conducting enquiry following A.P.C.S. (CC and A) Rules, in O.A. No. 10O90/2011 dated 28-8-2013 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and consequently set aside proceedings No.06/PR/A/2006-13/R.O.O. No.348/2013

¶19

¶20

¶21

daled 17-10-201:l rn,l C.No. 06/PR/A|2OO613 dated 17-1C-1'.0'11,, on the file of the 1't respondent.

¶22

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013 tPMP. NO: 38548 OF 2013)

¶23

Petition unde - :lection 151 CPC praying that in the (;rr runrstances stated in the affidavit liled in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 marr be pleased to suspend the order ir so far as and to the extent :hat " er;pordents are not precluded frorn cc n(lucting enquiry following A.P.rl.S. CiC &A) Rules" in O.A. No. 10090/201 1 daled 28-8-2013, on the file of A P. Adninislrative Tribunal, Hyderabad a n,J c )nsequential proceedings No.0€/P Rll'l20)6- 13/R.O.O. No.348/2013 dated 1';-1O-2O13 and C.No. 06/PRyA/2006-1 I Jatr:d 17-10-2013. on the f ile of ther^'1 'r r€,spondent.

¶24

Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRl. M. VENKAT RAM REDOY

¶25

Counsel for the Re: pondent No. 1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES, I

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

o .)

¶29

HON'BI^F SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESIIWAR RAO

¶30

W.P.No3 9 0F 201i

¶31

ORDER. @ar Hoz'bb Si Jtttu Ablinand ktnar Sbant)

¶32

Aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.20i3 passed in O.ANo.1@90 of 201,L 6y the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'rhe Tribunal), Hyderabad, t}e present writ petition has been filed. 2 Heard Sri MVenkat Ram Reddy, leamed counsel appearing for the pedrioner and learned Govemmenr Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶33

It is the case of the petitioner rhat he was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police and while working as such, the disciplinary authority has initiated disciplinary proceedings against him and thereafter, charge memo was issued on 08.05.2000, wherein it was alleged rhat the

¶34

¶35

petitionr r demanded and accepted illega[ gratrfication frorrL th: complainant's father. pursuant tlLen:to, the petitron( r has submined a detailed explanatir;n ,ienying the cha g,:s leveled against hirn Therealtr:r, regular enquiw ,\xls conducted and based u1rcn rhc llnquiry Offrcer's r,lporr, the disciplinary authorigv I ai, irnposed the punir hrnent of postponement of inr:reme n,s for two yean wit r effect on future increments and 1x:nsitn aitle procee<lir gr; dared 29-01-2OlO. Aggriered br rhe same, the periti >ner has unsuccessfully preferred a1.,peJ and later. ,rpp o;rched the Tribunal byfiling ().Alk, 10190 of 2011.^'tl : Iribunal uide order dxed2g.0g.20.l, se- asidc the pr-Lnisi nrent on the ground that ther,: was inordinare delay in cr nslrd;r* the proceedings and ry fo 1<:wirg the law laiC d, ,un by rhe Apex Court in M.[.-.Billart u.r. (.:nion of [nr/ia at,/ otst. However, the Tribun.rl har ;rrngely

¶36

(200(r ) ,li( 1 s

1 I t t

observed that the respondents were not precluded from conducting the enquiry after following the CCA Rules. FIence, the writ petition.

¶41

4 karned coursel appearing for the petitioner had contended that when once the Tribunal has set aside the punishment on the ground of inordinate delay, the question of giving libertyto the respondenrc ro conduct enquiry afresh does not arise. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by sening aside that portion of the orrder passed by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has observed that the respondents were not precluded from condtrcting the enquiry by following the CCARules.

¶42

Having corsidered the said submissions, this Coun is of the view that the Tribunal has set aside the order of punishment on t}e ground that tlrere was inordinate

¶43

¶44

dela;', ar d hence, the question of again pen.nining the resp<>nd, nB to conduct enquiry afresh <loes nc,t arise. 6. Ac ordingly the^'Writ Petition i; allcv,ed setring aside tha 1>ortion of the order of the Tribunrl wtLerein it 'was ,)bsr nred that the respondenB were ncrt precluded from cor drcdng fresh enquiryand also the c,rr:se<pential protx:edi rgs of conducting a fresh oral engriry <>rdered agarnst t,Le petitioner uide proceedings rlated 17.n.2013. No c,rsts

¶45

iVlis:ellaneous peririons, if *y, pendin€ rihall stand clos,:,1

¶46

Tl rat Rule Nisi has been made absolute at;^i:rbo're.

¶47

\ Witness THE F ON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BllLlYAltl,^{on this} Wednesday. Thr Twelfth Day Of July Two Thousand And^{'fwentyThree.}

¶48

IiD/.,G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ;^ll.) SEC'NON OFFICER

¶49

To, 1 . The Deputy ln ;p,--ctor General of Police, Karimnagar Ra rg;e, ]'larimnaga^- 505 001

¶50

The Deputy ln ;p,lctor General of Police, Warangal Rang,-', at VJarangal - 506 o02.

¶51

The lnspector 3r>neral of Police, North Zone, A.P., Hydeta:rad^- 500 004

¶52

The Governmt nl of Andhra Pradesh. rep. by its Principle {;iecretary, Home Dept. Secretat al Buildings, Hyderabad - 500 022.

¶53

The Registrar, A P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderitbad,

¶54

One CC to Sr tt/I. Venkat Ram Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to C P for Services I, High Court for the Sitate cf^'l-elangana. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copie S

TJ GJP

HIGH COUR]

DATED:1210712023

ORDER

,4 -.= ,..._ -:<br>o\ L'( r! ,llr---er
(:.
il ritlE 2U8 ,v
r:)

¶60

WP.No.31039 of 2013

¶61

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

¶62

WITHOUT CC STS.

¶63

ll) *r

¶64

@or.' A^"D

G.Sathish Kumar, Warangal Dist v. the Dy.Inspector General of Police,and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Sathish Kumar, Warangal Dist v. the Dy.Inspector General of Police,and 4 Others

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 Superintendent of Police, Vs Putta Nagamma

Divisional Forest Officer and 3 Others Vs K.Balaiah and Anothers

Dir. Gen., H and F.W., New Delhi and Ano. Vs T. Bhagavanth Rao and Ano.

Vekataiah Vs The A.P. Administrative Tribunal

N.Ashok Rao, Vs B.Ashok

Ap Vaidya Vidhana Parishad Vs Dr.Feroz Sultana,and 2