WP/22319/2006 of The Engineer in Chief (RANDB) Administration, Vs Sri.I.Jayanandam on 22 December 2006

@#@#@#@#@#@#@

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAOANDHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESHRANGANATHANWRIT PETITION NOs:21366 and 22319 of 2006DATED: 22-12-2006

W.P.No.21366 of 2006:

Between:

The Engineer-in-Chief, Administration, Erramanzil, Hyderabad

..... PETITIONER

ANDK.Anil KumarW.P.No.22319 of 2006:Between:The Engineer-in-Chief (R &B), Erramanzil, HyderabadANDJayanandam

.....RESPONDENT

..... PETITIONER.....RESPONDENT

@#@#@#@#@#@#@

COMMON ORDER:(per The Hon’ble Sri Justice RameshRanganathan)

Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II andSri Karanam Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent-applicants and at their request these writ petitions were heard andare being finally disposed of.

The order of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.6492 and 6520 of 2005are required to be set aside on a short ground. The Tribunal hadrelied on Circular Memo dated 01-07-1998 and U.O.Note dated 27-04-2000, wherein three months time had been stipulated forconducting and completing an enquiry in simple cases and sixmonths in complicated cases, in directing the respondents toconclude the disciplinary proceedings within three months from thedate of receipt of a copy of the order and had held that, in case thedisciplinary proceedings were not concluded within the stipulatedtime, the respondent-applicants be reinstated into serviceimmediately after the stipulated period of three months expires.The Circular Memo dated 01-07-1998 and the U.O.Note dated 27-04-2000 referred to and relied upon by the Tribunal, were neitherreferred to in the application filed in the O.A. nor were thepetitioners herein given an opportunity of being heard with regardsthe application of these proceedings to the case on hand.

In similar cases we have already held that the Tribunalought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner herein to make its submissions, with regards the applicability of the CircularMemo dated 01-07-1998 and the subsequent U.O.Note dated 27-04-2000 to the facts of the present case, before the O.As weredisposed of. In all those cases we have already set aside theorder of Tribunal and have remanded the matter back to theTribunal to consider the matter afresh.

Sri Karnam Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent-applicants would, however, submit that the peculiar facts of thiscase would necessitate this Court not to exercise its discretionaryjurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, tointerfere in the matter. Learned counsel would submit that despitea lapse of more than one year since the OAs were filed, not evenan enquiry officer has been appointed till date. Learned counselwould also point out that pursuant to the order of the Tribunal therespondent-applicant has been reinstated into service and there isno reason why the respondent-applicants reinstatement should beinterfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India.

None of these submissions, urged before us, were referredto by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has only referred to the CircularMemo dated 01-07-1998 and U.O.Note dated 27-04-2000 indisposing of the OAs, even though there is no reference thereto inthe application filed in the O.A.

The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matterremanded back to the Tribunal for their adjudication afresh inaccordance with law. Learned Government Pleader for Services-IIwould submit that a counter-affidavit would be filed in the OAswithin a period of two weeks from today. The Tribunal shalldispose of the OAs within a period of three weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order, after hearing both sides.

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, inthe circumstances, without costs.

________________

B.PRAKASH RAO, J

22[nd] December, 2006SKM

_______________________

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J