Telangana High Court
WP/8142/2009 of Y. Madhu Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited on 31 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8142 of 2009 Between: Y. Madhu S/o. Prabhudas O/o. Divisional Engineer, Operation,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 8142 of 2009
Between:
Y. Madhu S/o. Prabhudas
O/o. Divisional Engineer, Operation, Eastern Power DistributionCompany of A.P. Limited, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Dwaraka Nagar, Vizag. Chairman & Managing Director, Dwaraka Nagar, Vizag.
2 Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited Rep. by its Divisional Engineer / Operation Bhimavaram, West Godavari Dist.
.....RESPONDENTS
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: SRI G.NAGABHUSHANREDDY FOR SRI P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO)
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.
O R D E R:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside orderdated 13-04-2009, whereby the petitioner is kept under suspension,pending enquiry into the allegations of commissions and omissions byhim.
After hearing Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioner, and perusing the record, I am of the view that the order ofsuspension is not liable to be interfered with, because the petitioner isfacing the allegations of release of unauthorized services in rural sectioncausing loss to the Distribution Company. The petitioner failed to pointout any jurisdictional error in the order of suspension. Therefore, the writpetition is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed tocomplete the enquiry, if they decide to initiate the disciplinaryproceedings, within a period of three (3) months from today.
As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.10648 of2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Dated 21[st] April, 2009vrn