Telangana High Court
WP/28886/2019 of Syed Ashraf Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2019
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.28886 of 2019 ORDER: This writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :- “……..to issue Writ, order or
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.28886 of 2019
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:
This writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :- “ ……..to issue Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.1587/ VI/ Vig. A/ GHMC/ 2019, dt.07/ 06/ 2019 issued by the 2[nd] respondent is arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the government orders and to quash or set aside the same, and to issue a consequential direction to the 2[nd] Respondent to continue the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.…..”
Heard Mr.A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the 1[st]respondent Sri Dayakar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
and
It has been contended by the petitioner that he is working as a Draughtsman and the 2[nd] respondent has placed him under suspension vide proceedings dated 07.06.2019 on the ground that he was detained by the police for more than forty eight hours in connection with Cr.No.18/ RCT-CR-2/ 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though more than six months have elapsed, the respondents are not reviewing the suspension order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are bound to review the suspension order in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to review the suspension order and pass appropriate orders in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994.
Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended that the case of the petitioner will be reviewed and appropriate orders would be passed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to review the suspension order dated 07.06.2019 and pass appropriate orders in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
30-12-2019 Prv
____________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J