The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed by an employee challenging proceedings for forfeiture of service. Upon the petitioner's counsel seeking permission for withdrawal, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn without any order as to costs.
The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.
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.
132521
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 18685 OF 2022
Between:
K. Ravi Kumar, S/o. K.Ananthaiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Dy. Superintendent (Finance) at office of Depot Manager, Mahaboobnagar District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the impugned proceedings in No.AMP/785(1)12022-HZ, dI. 1211t2022 of the 3'd respondent by rejecting the claim of the petitioner by forfeiting the entire 3lyears of service in the Corporation and also giving re-appointment and paying minimumpay in time scale the said action of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory without any application of mind and also in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and declare the same as bad in law and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to draw the salary of the petitioner on the basic pay of Rs.31,0901 which was drawn at the time of his resignation
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Courtmaybe pleasedto direct the respondents to draw the salary of thepetitioner on the basic pay of Rs.31,0901 which was drawn at the time ofhis resignation. pending disposalof the above writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. C. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY
Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG(SC FORTSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER
/
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION 0.18685 0F 2022
ORDER:
Sri C.Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner seel<spermission of this Court for withdrawal of thepresent writpetition.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
SD/. A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTIO OFFICER
To.'1. One CC to SRl. C. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1610712025
ORDER
WP.No.18685 of 2022
I
0 4 AUS 2025
,//
)!
I
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS 6)i' W
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed considering the prayer for withdrawal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Ravi Kumar
The State of Telangana
The Managing Director, TSRTC Bus Bhavan Hyderabad
SUREPALLI NANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
