Dandu Ashirwadam Jaipaul Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 40389 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dandu Ashinaradam Jaipaul, S/o. Ashirwadam, Aged 72 years, Occ. Retd. Tahsildar, Ri"/o. Door No. 5-1'19, Seshadri Nagar, B.K. Reddy Colony, Mahabubnagar-509 001, Mahabubnagar District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State of Telangana, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The District Collector, Medak District, Medak.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the respondents, in not treating the period of suspension from 16110120O8 lo 25/0212010, as spent on duty for all - -purposesa in pursuance of the Proceedings No. Pen-1(l)1923120'12, dated 1710212024, issued by the 2nd respondent, and not considering the representations made by the petitioner dated 1611012024 and 2411212024 in this regard, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, u nco nstitutiona l, being violative of Articles 14, 16, l9 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension ftorn 1611O120O8 to 25lO2l2O1O, as spent on duty for all^purposes, in accordance with the Fundamental Rule 54-B,

¶16

and release all the pending arrears and consequential benefits for the said period, to the petitioner within the stipulated period.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 direct the respondents, to consider the representations made by the petitioner daled 1611012024 aod 2411212024 respectively, in pursuance of the Proceedings No. Pen-1(l)/92312012, dated 1710212024, issued by the 2nd respondent, with regard to treating the period of suspension of the petitioner from 16/10/2008 to 2510212010 as spent on duty for all purposes, within the stipulated period, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GOURARAM RAJASHEKAR REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

iI

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶25

IVRIT PETITION No.4O3A9 OF 2025

¶26

Dated OTth January, 2O26

¶27

Between:

¶28

Dandu Ashirwadam Jaipaul.

¶29

... Pc Litioner

¶30

AND

¶31

The State of Telangana,

¶32

Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government,

¶33

Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department,

¶34

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat Buildings,

¶35

Saifabad, Hyderabad and Q, others.

¶36

. . . Respondents

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

With the consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶39

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 ol the

¶40

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶41

"...1o issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularlA one in the nature of Wit of Mandamu' declaing that the^qctton of the respondents, in not treating the peiod of suspension from 16.10.2008 to 25.02.2010, as spent on dutg for all purposes, itl" pursuance of the Proceedings No.Pen 1[r/923/2012, dated 17.02.2024, issued bg the Q^a respondett, and not consideing the representations made bg the petitioner dated 16.10.2024 and 24.12.2024 in this regard, as illegal, improper, arbitrory, unjust,

!-

2

PK,J wp_40389 2025

.\

unconstitutional, betng violatiue of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Conslifillro,r of India artd consequently direct the respondents to treat the peiod of susperrsion from 16.10.2008 to 25.O2.2O10, as spent on dutg for all purposes, in accordance uith the Fundamental Rule 54-8, and release all lhe petldtno anrears^qncl consequential be,neJits for the said peiod, to the pelttioner u,ithin tlLe stipulated penod, and pass..."

¶47

Heard Sri G.Rajasekhar Reddy, iearned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-l for the respondents.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service in the capacity of Tahsildar on 3i.03.2011 and while he ',r,as serving as Tahsildar at Kondapak Mandal, Medak District, he^,,r'as placed under suspension uide proceedings dated 23.1O.2OOa on the allegation of his involvement in Crime No.2OIACB-NZB /2OOB dated 16.10.2008 on the file of ACB, Nizamabad Range. Subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 05.03.2010 and continued in service till 31.03.2011 i.e., the date on which he attained the age of superannuation- It is further submitted that upon {iling of the charge sheet in the said criminal case, the matter was taken cognizance as C.C. No.82 of 2013 by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for

¶49

PK,J Wp,40389 2025

¶50

r

¶51

Speedy Trial of Cases of Embezzlement of Scholarship Amounts in Social Welfare Department etc., Nampally, Hyderabad. The trial Court, uide judgment dated 03. 10.2018, acquitted the petitioner from all the charges. Learned counsel contends that though the petitioner was acquitted from the said criminal case, the respondents are not regularizing the period of suspension and are not releasing the pending arrears of salar5r and other consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner for the said period. As such, the petitioner submitted representations dated 16.10.2024 and 24.12.2024 to respondent No.2. Hou,ever, learned counsel prays this Court to permit the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to respondent No.2 for redressal of his grievance and further direct respondent No.2 to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with 1aw r.l,ithin a time-frame to be stipulated by this Court.

¶52

Learned Government Pieader appearing for the respondents fairly submits that on receipt of representation lrom the petitioner, respondent No.2 rvill consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

r'-

4

PK,J Wp 40389 2025

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to submit a representation to respondent No.2, for redressal of his grievance. rvithin a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such a representation. respondent No.2 is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with 1aw, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) rveeks therefrom and communicate a copy of the decision to the petltloner

¶57

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

There sha11 be no order as to costs.

¶59

SD/.P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER

¶60

To,

¶61

1 The Princip€l Secretary to Government, Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Secretariat Buildings. Saifabad, Hyderabad, State oi Telbngana.

¶62