Telangana High Court
WP/28459/2008 of G.Prasad Vs The Mandal Parishad Development Officer on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 28459 of 2008 BETWEEN: G.Prasad S/o.G.Gangaiah, Gram Panchayat Yerrepalle
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No. 28459 of 2008
BETWEEN:
G.Prasad S/o.G.Gangaiah, Gram Panchayat Yerrepalle Pulivendula(M) Kadapa District.
AND
... PETITIONER
1 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer Pulivendula(M) Kadapa District District 2 The Project Director(N.R.E.G.S) District Water Management Agency Kadapa District Agency Kadapa District 3 The District Collector Kadapa District
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may bepleased to to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of Mandamusdeclaring the impugned proc issued by the Mandal Parishad DevelopmentOfficer and Program Officer Pulivendula (M) Kadapa District placing thepetitioner under Suspension with the effect from 26-8-2008 is as illegalarbitrary and unjust and violative of principles of natural justice andconsequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Field AssistantYerrepalle Pulivendula (M) Kadapa District with all consequential benefitsand pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURALDEV.
The Court made the following:
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 questioning the order dated Nil passed byrespondent No.1 suspending the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in WP.No.26264 of2008 this Court set aside the order passed against similarly situated personon the ground that the said order was passed in violation of principles ofnatural justice, without framing charges and without holding enquiry.
3. A perusal of the said order shows that the order impugned in the saidwrit petition was one of termination and not suspension.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if therespondents have power to suspend the petitioner, no provision is made forpayment of subsistence allowance.
5. As the impugned order passed is one of suspension, I am not inclinedto interfere with the same. However, the respondents are directed toconsider the payment of subsistence allowance, if such a provision isavailable in respect of the post held by the petitioner.
The respondents shall finalize the enquiry and pass final orders within aperiod of three month from today.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order asto costs.
_____________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
December 29, 2008DSK