Disposed

Ch. Anandam v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Jul 2023WP/4180/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Commissioner, Telangana, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.06.2023 concerning his removal from service as Additional Programme Officer and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner, State of Telangana, to consider the petitioner's representation of 22.06.2023 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Ch. Anandam Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITI N NO:41 F 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ch. Anandam, Sio. Rajaiah, Occ Additional programme officer (Pitlam) F/o. Lachapet village of Machareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its principal Secretary '.to^{the Panchayath} Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat buildings, 'Hyderabad.

¶12

The Chairman Centre for Ruial Development Studies, Represented by its Vice- Chairman, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30.

¶13

The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Nizamabad District

¶14

The Member Secretary, Society for Rural Development Services, Rural Development, 5-10-192, Huda Hermitage office complex, Hill fort Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of removing the petitioner from the post of Additional programme officer, Pitlam, Nizambad District, passed by the respondent no.3 in proceedings No. HR/NZB/8S, dated. 29-3-2012 and confirmed the same by the respondents no.4 in proceedings No. S224iCRDISPM(DM)137812012, dated.24-9-2012 is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of nalural^justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia.

¶17

t.A. NO : 1 OF 2013(l /FMP. NO: 5 222 0F 20131

¶18

Petition und e S,ection 151 CPC praying that in the cir::urrstances stated in the affidavit f iled n support of the petition, the Higl Court^{rnay'be pleasedto} suspend the o rd e.s tassed^{by the respondentno.3 in prc:eedingsNo. No.} HR/NZB/85, dated '9-3-2012 and confirmed the samr: by tlte' rel;pondents no.4 in proceed ings No. I 2rl 4/CR D/S P M (Dl\A) I 37 B I 20 1 2, d ated.24 s' 20^{1 2.}

¶19

Counsel for the Peti :ic,ner: SRI A. SURYANARAYANA

¶20

Counsel for the Res rc,ndent No.1 to 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT^{RAJ & RURAL} DEVELOPMENT

¶21

Counsel for the Res )c,ndent No.4: M/s. R. PADMA REKHA⁽ Sf'L^{C MGNREGS)} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARA RAO

¶23

UrRIT PETITION No.418O of 2O13

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶26

"..... to issue an order or direction more particularll' one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of removing the petitioner from the post of Additional Programme Ofhcer, Pitlam, Nizamabad District, passccl bv the respondent No.3 in proceedings No.HR/NZB/85, dated 29.O3.2012 and conhrmed the same by respondent No.4 in proccedings No.5224 / CRD / SPM(DM) /37a l201-2, dated 21.O9.2O12 is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice...... ".

¶27

)

¶28

Heard learned counsei appearing for the petitioner and the learned Govemment Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents.

¶29

l,earned counsel appear:ing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Programme Officer of Pitlam Mandal, Nizamabad District on O1.O4.2O10 and while discharging his duties, the petitioner was involved in alleged misappropriate of funds and accordingly, the 3.d respondent, after issuing notice and after considering the explanation submitted by^the petitioner, has passed orders dated 29.03.2O l2 removing

¶30

the pltitio rr.r- frorn ser'"ice. Aggriered^{1lt,:r-eb1'.the} an pctitioner lrrrs prefcrred appeal belc r-,^' Lhe^4rrr respon Jenl irr-rd the 4'h respondent vide^{o de -dated} 24.O9..10I 2 tlismisscd the appeal conf rming, the^order passed br I t( 3,d respondent. QuestionirLg ttLe^{. r,rdr:r} dated 24.O9.tlo 1:2^p lssed b-v tlre^4'h respondent, thc^{piesent u'rit} petitiorr h,r s be en filed

¶31

L, rar n, d counsel appearing for the lletl [i() tor further submits ti- r, r 'r'hile perrding the u,'rit petit;on,¹ rr^pt.titioncr .has subrL,t e,1 a replcsentation dated 22.Of'.2.)23 to the Commrssir,r',:r , [he Statc of Telangana, Pirnr:lLtn rt Raj and Rural tlevt l rpment. Ilvderabad, by post,^rvhictr s delivered on 24.()6..:l- 2:. To that effect, learned couns:1 appean-ing lor the Delit )uer fi1ed a rnemo dated 03.0i'.2021

¶32

Tlrerr: o;-e, learned counsel aplrearir g Ior the petitioner sr b mits that appropriate orders br: pzL,;se,:l in the r,r'rit pe tit i,r. r drrecting the Commission:r, t rr S,tate of Telanga r-ra , I 'anchat zrt Raj and Rurirl D r:^r'elopment, Hvderaba<l I r consider Lhe representation subnrittecl br. the petitioner o t 22.06 .2023 and pass appr,)priil -c orders in accorda n cc r'i th lanr'

¶33

This Court, having considered the above submisslons made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the Commissioner, the State of Telangana, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Hyderabad, to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 22 .06.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a reasonable period of time, preferably \ rithin a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a dopy of this order

¶34

With the above directions, the writ petition IS disposed of. No costs

¶35

Pending miscellaneous petitions, il any, shall stand closed.

¶36

SD/. R.KARTHIKEYAN ASSISTANT REGI TRA R _/ ,/v //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶37

To, 1. The Principal Secietary to the Panchayath^{Raj and Rura.l Development, The} Government of Andhra Pradesh,^{Secretariat buildings,Hyderabad.}

¶38

1. The Vice- Chairman, The Chairman^{Centre for Rural DevelopmentStudies,} Raiendranaoar. Hvderabad-30.

¶39

Tha Projectbirectbr, District^{Water Management Agency, Nizamabad District} 4. The Member Secretary, Society^{for Rural Development Services, Rural} Development, 5-10-1d2, Huda^{Hermitage office complex,Hill fort Road,} Saifabad. Hvderabad.

¶40

One CC io sRl A. SURYANARAYANA,^Advocate [oPUC]

¶41

Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT^{RAJ& RURAL DEVELOPMENT'High} Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTj

¶42

ONE CC tO M/S. R. PADMAREKHA^{(SPL C MGNREGS)} [OPUC]

B. Two CD Copies

PSK.

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:07107^t2t023

ORDER

WP.No.4180 )l'2013

a/
'.2. <br>-1. :.,.<br>I
ll 1r, l,[fr ?tB
'\ -'.
.i-tj

¶52

DISPOSING I )F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C( )STS

¶53

L
.=( a- b7)
,f,fi<br>

Ch. Anandam v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch. Anandam v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Masadi Linga Rao and 3 Others Vs Vardineni Narsinga Rao and 2 Others

V.Devi Vs Depot Manager

Smt R. Andalu, Vs S. Narsa Reddy

G. Limbadri swamy s/o. Gangaram, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.Ramesh Vs Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology

A. Suryanarayana, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary to Government