Telangana High Court
WP/23999/2004 of A. Venkataiah S/o Thirupataiah Vs The Deputy Commandant CISF Unit, SCCL(S) RKP Area on 27 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 23999 of 2004 Between: A . Venkataiah S/o Thirupataiah CISF Unit, SCCL(S) RKP Area, Post
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 23999 of 2004
Between:
A. Venkataiah S/o Thirupataiah CISF Unit, SCCL(S) RKP Area, Post C.C. Complex, Naspur District Adilabad (AP)
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Deputy Commandant CISF Unit, SCCL(S) RKP Area Post: CC. Complex Naspur distrct:Adilabad (AP)
2 The Deputy Commandant CISF Unit, SCCL(S) Mandamari Area Post: CC. Complex Naspur distrct: Adilabad (AP)
3 The Deputy Inspector General CISF (SZ) Hqrs. Chennai
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleasedto issue Writ or direction particularly in the nature of Mandmaus or any otherappropriate Writ declaring the order No. V-15014/SCCL-RKP/Disc/04-3948, dt5-102004 and consequential memorandum V-15014/SCCL-RKP/Disc/Maj(/S)AV/04-4413, dated 25-11-2004 on the file of the respondent as illegal, voidarbitrary, malicious and against to the principles of natural justice and set-aside the same.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.AVULA
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.ARAJASHEKAR REDDY (SC FOR CG)
The Court at the admission stage, made the following :
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANUWRIT PETITION NO: 23999 of 2004
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The present writ petition has been filed to declare the order No.V-15014/SCCL-RKP/Disc/04-3948, dated 05-10-2004 and consequentialmemorandum in No.V-15014/SCCL-RKP/Disc/Maj (/S) AV/04-4413, dated 25-11-2004, as illegal, void and arbitrary.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he lent certain amounts to the1[st] respondent-Deputy Commandant who is appointed as an Enquiry Officeragainst him and the said issue is in dispute. Therefore, he prays to appoint anyother Deputy Commandant as an Enquiry Officer.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while the petitioner wasworking in the Central Industrial Security Force of SCCL Unit, he had givenhand loan of a tune of Rs.50,000/- to the 1[st] respondent and the same person isappointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry with regard to certainirregularities against the petitioner. Therefore, he prays to change the Enquiry Officer.
4 . On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for therespondents opposed the same on the ground that the allegation of borrowalfrom the petitioner is not correct and hence, he prays to dismiss the writpetition.
5. As seen from the record, it is one of the articles of charge that the petitionerpaid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the 1[st] respondent for the purpose of meetingthe expenditure towards the hostel fee to the son of the 1[st] respondent.Therefore, in the fitness of things, the same person cannot conduct enquiryagainst the petitioner. In fairness and justice, the enquiry should be conductedby the person equal to the cadre of the Enquiry Officer so as to complete theenquiry in fair and proper manner. Therefore, a direction can be given to the 2[nd]respondent to appoint another Deputy Commandant for conducting enquiryagainst the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed only to the extent of changingthe Enquiry Officer. The 2[nd] respondent is directed to appoint another EnquiryOfficer in the cadre of Deputy Commandant to proceed further. However, in thecircumstances of the case, the suspension order under challenge cannot berevoked. There shall be no order as to costs.
Kvr
TO
___________________ December27, 2004
1 The Deputy Commandant CISF Unit, SCCL(S) RKP Area Post: CC. Complex Naspur distrct:Adilabad (AP)
2 The Deputy Commandant CISF Unit, SCCL(S) Mandamari Area Post: CC. Complex Naspur distrct: Adilabad (AP)
3 The Deputy Inspector General CISF (SZ) Hqrs. Chennai 4 Two C.D. Copies.