Telangana High Court
WP/44/2003 of P.Bhaskara Rao Vs Divisional Railway Manager on 22 December 2006
MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.44 of 2003 22nd December 2006 Between: P.Bhaskara Rao,S/o.Sangeeta Rao,50 years,residing at Ramnagar, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. …PETITIONER AND 1. Divisional Railway Manager, South Central
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
And
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO.44 of 2003
Between:
22[nd] December 2006
P.Bhaskara Rao,S/o.Sangeeta Rao,50 years,residing at Ramnagar,Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.
…PETITIONER
AND
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.
1. Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway,Hyderabad Division, Secunderabad.
And two others.
…RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
And
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION NO.44 of 2003
ORDER:(Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)
Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,Hyderabad (‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) in O.A.No.596 of 2000 dated27.03.2002, wherein the petitioner’s request to be reinstated intoservice consequent upon his acquittal in the criminal case wasrejected, the present Writ Petition is filed.
The Tribunal noted that this Court, in Crl.R.C.No.1200 of 1999,had reduced the punishment to payment of fine amount of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) and had disposed of the revision. TheTribunal recorded the concession of the counsel that he did not want tostress on the relief of reinstatement into service of the respondent-applicant and that he would only make submissions on the question ofpayment of subsistence allowance. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A.directing the petitioner herein to attend the office at Sr.DPO, SouthCentral Railway, Hyderabad within a period of one month and fulfill the necessary requirements to enable the respondents to make paymentof subsistence allowance according to the petitioner-applicant’sentitlement and directed the respondents to make payment within onemonth thereafter.
Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, wouldsubmit that merely on the ground of conviction in the criminal case, anemployee’s services cannot be automatically terminated and that thecompetent authority is required to apply his mind to the facts andcircumstances of the case and take an appropriate decision in thisregard. He would further point out that the counsel, who had appearedon behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal, had erroneouslyconceded that no relief of reinstatement could be sought, and wouldplace before us the affidavit filed by the Counsel, who had appearedon behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal, wherein it is stated thathe had given this concession without instructions from the petitionerherein.
It is not for this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, to examine the affidavit now filed before us andcome to a conclusion that the petitioner’s case should have been decided on merits. These facts should have been brought to the noticeof the Tribunal itself. In view of these facts now brought before us, weconsider it appropriate to set aside the order of the Tribunal andremand the matter for its consideration afresh, including in the light ofthe affidavit now filed before us, and pass appropriate orders inaccordance with law.
Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However,in the circumstances, without costs.
_________________
(B.PRAKASH RAO, J)
_______________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)
22[nd] December 2006RRB