A revenue court suspended a government employee advocating reinstatement due to suspension exceeding two years without disciplinary conclusion, directing the corporation to review the order.
Respondent No.3 directed to review the suspension order in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.526 dt.19.09.2008 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.
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.
[3301 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE T\A/ENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION NO: 33M20F 2023
Between:
U.Govind Raj, Q/o late U.Eswraiah, Aged about 5l years, Occ.Rent Cotlector (Under Suspension), O/o.Estate Officer, Working on Deputation in Circle-30, GHMC, R/o. H. No.20- 1 - 1 09, Puranapul, Bhadurpura, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe ionstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned Proc.No.e255955/0P3/AC(A|GHMC|2O2123 -S3 dt.16/06/2023 issued by the 3rd respondent continuing the petrtioner under suspension on the pretext of review longer than the two year time period prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.526 dt.19l0&l2008 is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and would nothing but a prolonged suspension besides being violation of Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and.set aside the same and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits.
i I I I I
lA l,lo: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetition,the High Court maybe pleased to direct the respondents to reinstated thepetitioner into serviceduly paying the working period salary lrom 0110712020 to2110912021by suspendingthe impugned e255955/0P3/AC{AyGHMC/2021 -23'5.3 dt1610612023issued by the 3rd respondent.
Cgunsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.RADHA KRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondents No.l&2 : GP FOR MCPLADMN URBANDEV
counsel for Respondents No.3 , SEKHAR RAo,
3['rr""JaXflRA
The Court made the following: ORDER
i
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.33442 of 2o23
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking thefollowing prayer
u to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare theimpugnedProc.No. e255955/OP3/AC(A)/GHMC/2O2r-23-53 dt.16.06.2O23 issued by the 3.d respondent continuing thepetitioner undersuspension on the pretext of review longer thanthe two year timeperiod prescribed in G.O.Ms.No-526 dl.19.O8.2008 isillegal,arbitrary, discriminatory ald would nothingbut aprolongedsuspension besides being violation of ArticlesI4 and 2I of the Constitutlonof India and set aside the same andconsequentlydeclarethat the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into servicewittr all consequential benefits andpass suchother order or ordersas this Hon'ble Court maydeem, fit,propcr ald necessaryin the circumstances of the case."
2
to be concluded due to various reasons like pending criminal cases, ACB cases etc., the Celinquent officer should be reinsl-ated without reference to pending finalization of the disciplinary procecdings. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 30. lO.2O23 to the respondents for his reinstatement to duty in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.09.2008 without reference to the pendency of disciplinary proccedings, as he was placed uncier suspension for more -thantwo years. Hence, he prays this Court to direct the respondentsto considcr the rcpresentation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders by duty taking into account of G.O.Ms.No.S26, dated 19-08.2008.
SD/- V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
ty SECTIONOFFICER
To, 1 The Principal Secretary,Municipal Administration and Urban Development llenartment State of T6hnoana. T. S. Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 fi[ Dffit"r;'iar'.i",pri"nJrinisiratron,Governinentof relangana'Tank Bund. Hvderabad.
I
HIGH COURT
\
DATED:2811212023
t
1t\e s TArG
(
2o
10 JA\ ?02[ -b
oof
t
t o
oEsPA"f
ORDER
WP.No.33442 of 2023
DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
o^*s,ry
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a government servant placed under suspension for more than two years should be reinstated without waiting for the finalization of disciplinary proceedings pending in criminal cases.
Whether a suspension order continuing the petitioner beyond the prescribed two-year period under G.O.Ms.No.526 dt.19/09/2008 is illegal and arbitrary.
Whether the High Court can direct the disciplinary authority to review the suspension order considering the delays.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
U. Govind Raj
State of Telangana
Director of Municipal Administration, Government of Telangana
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Pulla Kartik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
