Disposed

Boda Laxmi Bai v. the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corp Ltd., and Another

Telangana HC25 Oct 2024WP/21579/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a departmental enquiry based on a charge-memo alleging moral turpitude against an APGENCO employee. With proceedings stayed during pendency and parties having since married and been promoted, the High Court disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to make a representation and respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to make representation explaining developments; respondents directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; petition disposed without costs.

Boda Laxmi Bai Vs the Andhra Pradesh Power… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

13217¹

¶2

: l I i I I ? I I I I

¶3

: a i I

¶4

HIGH COURT^{FOR THESTATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY^{FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶8

WRIT PETITION^{NO:21579 OF 2007}

¶9

Between:

¶10

BODA LAXMI BAl,^{D/o B. Suryam, age 32 years,.Occ:Junior Personal Officer'} [.p. O"nco^{O/o Vidyuth Soudtia, Khairatabad, Hyderabad'}

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 THE ANDHRA PRADESH^{POWER GENERATIONCORP LTDCPbY its} frlanrging Dii".tor.^{Vidyuth Soudtha.Khairatabad. Hyderabad'}

¶14

2 The Superintending^{Engineer, Enquines &, Enquiry Officer,A P Genco'} Vidyuth Southa.^HYderabad-82

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under^{Article 226 of the constitution of lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Court} -may bepleased to issue order^{or direction more partlcularlyin the nature of Writ of} 't,landamus declaring the action of the Respondents in conducting the O"Jat...trf Enquiri^{againstthe petitionerin pursuanceof Charge-Memo} -dated aoloo-zooz, vide^{N-osE/Enq/APGENCOA,/s/HyD /F 12o7tD. No. 202107 as} illegal, arbitrary^{againstthe principles of naturaljuslice.and the same is without} jriiiJiltion and pri, such other oider or orders as the^{Hon',btecourt may deems} fit and properⁱⁿ the^interestof lusttce.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF^{2007(WPMP. NO: 27991 0F 2007)}

¶18

PetitionunderSectionl5,lCPCprayingthatintheCircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,ine Higncourt may be pleased stayall} iurtner Oepartmental^{Enquiry Proceedrngs-'n p-u'9!a.lc9of Charge-Memo- dated} et-oO-zooi,^vide No^{SE/Enq./APGENCOnr"luvolr t2 oTlD No 202lO7and} pass such other order or^orders

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF^{2008WVMP.NO: 250 OF 2008}

¶20

Between:

¶21

1 THE THE ANDHRA^{PRADESH POWERGENERATION CORP LTD} '^{rep bv its}

¶22

1 THE THE ANDHRA^{PRADESH POWERGENERATION CORP LTD} ' fvij"jgi"g Diiector Vidyuth Soudtha, Khairatabad Hyderabad

¶23

The Superintending^{Engineer,-Enquines&, EnquiryOfficer' A P Genco} Vidyuth Southa.^HYderabad-82

¶24

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶25

AND

¶26

BODA LAXMI^{BAl.D/o B. Suryam, age 32 years, OccJunior Personal Officer'} a-p. O"nCo,^{O/o VtdyuthSoudtia, Khairatabad, Hyderabad}

¶27

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶28

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat ln the crrcumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{rn supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleased vacate} in" int"ri, stay^{grantedin wpMp No 27gg1to7 in wp No 21579t07 dt 1 1-10-} ioOz in tn" lnter&t^{ot justiceand pass suchother order or orders as this Hon'ble} Court may deem^{fit and properin the circumstances of the case}

¶29

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRl. P S P SURESH KUMAR}

¶30

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.1:MS. K UDAYASRI}

¶31

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.2:MS. V' UMA DEVI Sc FoRGENCO}

¶32

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶33

¶34

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N. TUI(ARAMJI} WRIT PETITIONN^{o.2L579 of 2OOz}

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh^{Kumar, Iearned counselfor the} petitioner and Ms.K.Udaya^{Sri, learned counselfor respondent} No.1 and Ms.V.Uma^{Devi, learned Standing Cousnel for} GENCO appearing^{for respondent No'2'}

¶37

This writ petition^{has beenhled under Article226 of} Constitution of^{India for issuance of Writ in the nature of} Mardamus^{declaringthe action ol the AndhraPradeshPower} Generation Corporation^Limited /^{respondentNo' 1 and the} Superintending^{Engineer, Enquiries and} Enquiry Off-rcer/ respondent^{No.2 inconductingthe Departmental} Enquiry against^{the petitionerin pursuance of charge-memo} dated 30.06.2OO7,^{vide No.SE/Enq'/APGENCO/VS/HYD'/} F.I2/07 /D.No.2O2 l07,^{as illegal,arbitrary'}

¶38

¶39

Today when the^{matter is taken up for hearing' ithas} been submitted^{that thecharge-memowas issuedby} respondent Nos.l^{and 2 on the groundof moral turpitude} basing on the findings^{in criminal caseshled by the writ} petitioner against^{her co-employeeand white admittingthis}

¶40

¶41

.TR,J It ? Noll579 oJ 2007

¶42

¶43

w'rtt petition. this Court has passed interim directron of stay of all further proceedings in the charge-memo and the order is in subsistence. Further, submitted that, during pendency of this wirt petition, thc writ petitioner and that co_employee got married and even they were promoted in their service.

¶44

As this position itself is indicating that the charg itself ',vould render infructuous and considering the scope of interference in the writ petition, gralting libcrtv to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 explaining the developments come to pass in respect of the charges. Whereupon, the respor-rdent Nos. 1 ald 2 are directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance rn,ith Iau'. [t is neeclless to say that, if aggrieved by the proceedings that ma_v transpire upon the representation, the petitioner r'r'ould be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedv.

¶45

5 With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶46

Miscellaneous applications, pending if anv, sha,ll stand

closed

To,

AS.'"??tt?13,i.+H1'_. _ SE6TION OFFICER

¶51

T,HE Managrng Drrector. Andhra pradesh power Generatron Corp Ltd vrdyuth Soudtha Khatratabad. Hyderabad

¶52

I I

¶53

The Superintending^{Engineer'Enquiries&, EnquiryOfficer' A'P Genco'} Vidyuth Southa,^HYderabad-82

¶54

One^CC to^{SRl.P S P SURESH KUMARAdvocate [OPUC]}

¶55

One CC to^{MS. K UDAYA SRI Advocate [OPUC]}

¶56

One CC to^{MS V UMA DEVI SC FOR GENCO [OPUC]}

¶57

b Two CD CoPies

¶58

KKS LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:2511012024

\ \

ORDER

r!l r 5 rA
(.(
1 'i DEl" ?t21 z
C.
)_
{t
r)rl' T 1-<br>

¶67

WP.No.21579 of 2007

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶69

rtt

¶70

5 lt> 1l)'1 3r ry'r^';

Boda Laxmi Bai v. the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corp Ltd., and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boda Laxmi Bai v. the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corp Ltd., and Another

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

A.P. Shop Employees Federation, Hyd. Vs Labour Employment, Training and Factories Dept.

Sri Syed Habeeb Vs Oriental Urdu College,Hyd and 4 Others

Kotha Ram Reddy Vs the Chairman Cum Presiding Officer and 3 Others

Koppula Devadas, Adilabad Dist. Vs G.M. S.C.C. Ltd. Adilabad Dist. and Another

Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Vs the Addl. Industrial Trib. and Another

Sh Chandrasekhar Vs the Nalgonda Dist. Co. Op. Central