Disposed

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

Telangana HC7 Jul 2023WP/6303/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, removed from service for alleged misappropriation, filed a writ petition. The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the removal but directed the Commissioner to consider a fresh representation filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.06.2023 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

G. Limbadri swamy s/o. Gangaram, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁴¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 6303 OF 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

AND

¶9

G. Limbadri _swamy s/o. Gangaram,, Aged. 3g years, Occ; Additional programme officer, Jakranpally Mandal, Nizjmabad District. ...PETITIONER

¶10

The Govemment of Andhraprade^sh,, Represented by its principal Secretary to the Panchayath Raj and Rural Development, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Chief Executive. officer,, Society for Rural Development Services cum commissioner. Rural Development, 5-10-.192, Huda Hermitage office

¶12

^{qgmplex, Hill fort Road, Saifabad,Hyderabad.}

¶13

The Member Secretary,, Society for-Rural Development Services, Rural Development, 5-10-1.92, Huda Hermitage office complex, Hill fort Rojd, Saifabad, Hyderabad.s

¶14

The Project Director,, District Water Management Agency, Nizamabad District.

¶15

Petition under Articte 226 o,f the Constitution of tndia ,.rr;ffi[:i'',fl;: 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 programme officer, Balkonda, Nizambad District, passed by the respondent no.4 in proceedings No- HR/00090/2o1olA3-1 , dated. 30-4-2012 and confirmed the sarne by the respondents no.3 and 2 in proceedings No. 424-9ISCRD /SFM(DM|31512012, dated. 31-7-2012 and 3-10-2012 is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of lndia.

¶16

t.A. NO: 1 0F 2013(WPMP. NO: 7880 OF 2013)

¶17

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 suspend the orders passed by the respondent no.4 in proceedings No.

¶18

HR/00090/20.1 0/A:r-' cjated. 30-4-2012 and confirtnerl th :^r;ame by the respondents nc,. ! : rr 2 in^proceedings No. 424-9lS'CRDi^{r; :-l\4( )l\A)1315i2012.} daled. 31-7-2O12 an': 3.10'2012

¶19

Counsel for the P€,tit o 1er: SRI A. SURYANARAYANA

¶20

Counsel for Responr errt No. 1:GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ 6 RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶21

Counsel for Respc,nr errt Nos. 2 to 4: SMT. R. PADMA ltEKH,l SC FOR MGNREGS

¶22

The Court made the >llowing: ORDER

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARA RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.63O 3 of 2O13

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This r,r.ri t pctition is tiled seelcing the follor,ing relief:

¶27

".,... to issue an order or (lircction nrore partrcularll, one rn the nature of V.trit of Mandarnus d.:clar.ing thc order of rcmoving the peritioner l.rom tl'te post of programme Officer, Balkonda, Nizamabad District, passed try the respondent No.4 in proceedings No IIR/0O()90/2(rtO/A3 l, clatccl J0.04_2012 and conhrmed the same by respondcnt Nos.3 and 2 in proceedings Nol424 9 / SCRD/ SFf/t(DMl/ 3 t5/20 12, dated 31.O7.2O12 and 03. 10.2012 is nothing but arbitrary, iilegal, null anrl 'oid and violative ol prirrciples of naturaljustice......"

¶28

Fleard learned coun'--r:1 appearing for. the pctitioner and the iear-ned Government Pleader for [,anchayal Raj and Rural Developmcnt appearing for the respondents.

¶29

[,carned counsel appearirlg for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Additionat Programme Officer in Employment Guarantec Scheme on t5.06.2006 and rvlrile discharging his drrties, the petitioner rvas involved in alleged misappropr.iate of funds and accordingly, the 4th respondent, after issuing notice and after cousidering the explanati,rn submitted by the petitioner, has passed orders ciated 30.04.2012 removing

¶30

the letiri )r.er- fronr service. Aggric vr:d t rcre b'. tire pe trtl(ln('i ras pr:ferred an appea be'r-^-c the 3"i respond3r'r and the 3,d respor-rdent vi,lr: ,)rdcr dated 31.O7.2O I I dismisscd the appeal cortlirnlirril the ordci passed fi t re 4'h t,:sportdent. Further aggr C .,cd thereb.r', thc peti .ir: ri:r has preferrcd Second Ap-lerLl :, fore the 2"'j rcspor-rd:n and Lhe 2.,1 respondent vide^,)rder dateci 03.10.20I I dismiss,:d thc Second Appcal corrfilming lhe order pass :rl l;y the 3'd respondent. Qnestiorrr ng lhe ordcr dated C3.lt.2O12 passed by the 2"r resp,rnrlent. the 'preser-It r'r t petition has been fi1ed.

¶31

Lerrl e'd counsel appearing for thr' peLitr rr-t< r further submits t[ a - rvhile perrdir-rg the rvrit pet] tion, 1-lrc retitioner has subnr tl ecl a rcpresentation dated 27 .06.'.20',',3 to the Comnrissir ir er, the State of Telangana, [)artc].ti:vat Ra.j and Rural Dt:r', Iopment, Hydcrabad, by post whir:lr is delivered on 3Ct.0t>.i C 23. To that effect, learned colrr sr:l rippeanirg for the pet tr cner lilcd zr memo dated O3.t)7 2C 12 l

¶32

Thc'r :lbre, lcarned counsel ai;pr:erring for the petitione r l:bmits that appropriate orders be 1:,assed in the rvrit pelitr rr r direcf ing the Commissioncr, tlre State of

¶33

¶34

Telangana, Panchayat R"j and Rural Development, Hyderabad to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 27 .06.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶35

This Court, having considered the above submissions nrade 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 Rat' and Rural Development, Hyderabad, to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 27 .06.2023 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. within a reasonable period of time, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the riate of receipt of a r:opy of this order.

¶36

With the above ditections, the writ petition 1S disposed of. No costs.

¶37

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

SD/- K.SREERAMA^MURTHY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// A

¶39

SECTION^OFFICER

¶40

To, 1. The commissioner,^{Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department'state} of Telanqana,,^HYderabad'

¶41

1. i[tTidiil;iuiii"^{oni".r,,society for Rurar Development services cum} commissioner.^{Rurat oevetop"riJni,t-io-r-gz, HudaHermitage office} iomolex, Hill^{fort Road,Saifabad,HyoeraDao'}

¶42

1. The Member Secretary,,^{sJ"iitv ?6i'Ct]tul Development Services'Rural} DeveloDment, Siiriodo, Hvderabad.s 5-10-1e2,^{Hfi; il;ilii;s;Jnlce c6mptex'Hill fort Road'} o'

¶43

-l he Pro]ect Dr :r:tor,, District lVater lVanagement ,\g€,nc /, Niz,tmabad

¶44

District

¶45

One CC to lir , Suryanarayana Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to^(, I^:or P^anchayat Raj & Rurai Develi pment , lligtr Court for the State of^-tel:rnr rrra. [OUT]

¶46

One CC^.o Sini fi. Padma Rekha, SC for IVGNRE35 (Or.JC) B. Two CD tlotrie

MBC PSK ,/ U

HIGH COURT

\ \

DATED: Ct710712023

,a I
,/,
r ! l[i 1,,:'j t
ORDER

¶52

WP.No,6303 of 2013

¶53

DISPOSING OF THE WRI"T F'ETITION

¶54

WITHCIU COSTS

¶55

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Limbadri swamy s/o. Gangaram, 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

Statutes considered

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

P.Ramesh Vs Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology

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

Ch. Anandam Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh