Telangana High Court
WP/8435/2021 of D. Vasanth Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others on 29 December 2023
THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD . (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO: 8435 OF 2021 [ 3301 ] PETITIONER Rep. by its Chief Secretary, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, Tank
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD. [(Special ][Original ][Jurisdiction)]
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION NO: 8435 OF 2021
Between:
iD. Vasanth Rao,S/o D. Narsimulu, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Naib Tahsildar(Enft.) Presentlyworking in the office of the District Civr'l Supplies, NizamabadDistrict.
PETITIONER
AND
1.The State of Telangana,Rep. by its Chief Secretary, B.R.K.R. Bhavan, TankBund, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad,Bund, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad,2.The State_of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department'at B.R-K.R. Bhavan, Tank Bund, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. at B.R-K.R. Bhavan, Tank Bund, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad.
4The District Collector, Nizamabad at Niazmabad.
5The District Collector, Kamareddy District At Kamareddy, Telangana State.
Petition under Artlcle 226 of the Constitution of tndia orrriff:[:i?rtll:
t
circumstances stated inl the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may beIapleased to issue an appttpriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in theInature of Writ of Mandalnus declare the issuance of the order daled 221O3t2O21ICCLAs Ref.No.VSlll(1y13/2021 issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the appealon the ground that there i" , O"try of 874 days and also limitation petition nor filed is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of law and consequently direct the respondentsincluding the petitioner for the post of Naib Tahsildar for the 201 7-18 withoutreference to the disciplinary case lA NO: 1 OF 2021
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in the order dated 2210312021 CCLAsRef.No.VSlll(1)11312021 issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the appeal on theground that there is a delay of 874 days, pending disposal of the main writ petitionCounsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. V. SHRIKANT
Counsel for Respondent No. 1: GP FOR SERVICES lll Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: GP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PEf,ITION No.8435 of 2O2t
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 filed seeking the following relief:
" . ..to issue an appropiate uit, order or dtrectionmore particularlg one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declare tlre issuance of the order, dated22/ os/2021 CCLAs' Ref No.VSil\l)/ 13/ 2O21 [issued]bg the l't respondent rejecting the appeal on [the]ground that there is a delag of 874 days and alsolimitation petition nor filed is arbitrary, illegal and [in]uiolation of la uL and consequentlg direct [the]respondents including the petitioner for the [post ]ofNaib Tahsildar for tle 2017-18 uithout [reference ][to]the disciplinary case and to pass.. .'
2. Heard Sri D.V.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing [on]
behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader [for]Services - III appearing on behalf of respondent No.l [and]Iearned Government Pleader for Services - II appearing [on]behalf of respondents No.2 to 5. Perused the [record.]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thepetitioner was imposed with the punishment of [stoppage ][of]one annual grade increment without cumulative [effect ][on]2a.O9.2}la by the Disciplinary Authority - [the ][Collector,]Kamareddy, uide proceeding [No.A3/686/2OI5-2, ][dated]
2a.O9.2ola on the ground that during the period ofconsideration in the panel year 2OIZ_lg (the period ofcurrency of panel begins from 1"t September of the said yearto 31"t August of the subsequent year) for the post of NaibTahsildar, the petitioner was not under the currency ofpunishment and when the panel for the post of Naib Tahsildaris being considered, the punishment of stoppage of oneannual grade increment without cumulative effect does notconsideration in the panel year 2OIZ_lg (the period ofcurrency of panel begins from 1"t September of the said yearto 31"t August of the subsequent year) for the post of NaibTahsildar, the petitioner was not under the currency ofpunishment and when the panel for the post of Naib Tahsildaris being considered, the punishment of stoppage of oneannual grade increment without cumulative effect does notexist for the punishment for the Incremental period falling inthe month of November, 2OlB. Further, challenging thepunishment order, dated 2a.Og.2OIg, the petitioner has filedan appeal before the Appellate Authority with a prayer tothe month of November, 2OlB. Further, challenging thepunishment order, dated 2a.Og.2OIg, the petitioner has filedan appeal before the Appellate Authority with a prayer tocondone the delay of 874 days and to set aside thepunishment order, dated 2g.Og.2OIg. Further, this Court haspunishment order, dated 2g.Og.2OIg. Further, this Court hasdirected the Appellate Authority to consider the appealpreferred by the petitioner along with delay applic ation uid.eorder, dated O3.O2.2O21. In compliance of the order, datedappealpreferred by the petitioner along with delay applic ation uid.eorder, dated O3.O2.2O21. In compliance of the order, datedO3.O2.2O2I, the Appellate Authority has passed an order andrejected the appeal on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by thesame, the petitioner liled the present Writ petition.
I,
4. Learned Government Pleader for Services - III submittedthat as per the directions of this Court, dated [O3.O2.2O21,]respondent No.l has considered the [appeal ]and [rejected ][the]same on the ground that there are no valid [reasons ]for [delay]of 874 days in filing the appeal and that the [punishment ][of]of one annual [grade ]increment [without ][cumulative]stoppage effect was also ended on 29.09.2019. [Therefore, ][there are ][no]grounds to consider any of the reliefs prayed for by [the]petitioner. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss the WritPetition.
In view of the submissions made by the respectiveof the submissions made by the respectivethe submissions made by the respectivesubmissions made by the respectiveby the respectivethe respectiverespective
5. In view of the submissions made by the respectiveof the submissions made by the respectivethe submissions made by the respectivesubmissions made by the respectiveby the respectivethe respectiverespectiveparties, this Court is of the considered opinion that thepetitioner has miserably failed to explain proper reason fordelay of 874 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, this Courtfinds no merits in the present Writ Petition. Hence, the WritPetition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There is noorder as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- V.HARI PRASASSISTANT REGISSECTION OICERASSISTANT REGISSECTION OICER
//TRUE COPY//
ITo,1.One CC to Sri D2.Two CCs to GP-vLnriunt For Services - [Advocare ]ll, High'Court [[opUCl]for thelouTII3.Two CCs to GPFot Services - lll, High Court for theIOUTI4.Two CD CopiesMBCIGJI
State of Telangana.
State of Telangana.
III
II
I
III
I
iititiIIIIIIl1III
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2911212023
ORDER
WP.No.8435 of 2021
(1H [E ][Sra,],*"t'{)I7 ilTB roM*+
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS