Telangana High Court
WP/40929/2014 of R. Laxmi Prasad Vs The State of A.P., on 31 December 2014
R. KANTHA RAO W.P.No.40929 of 2014 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the proceedings dated 18.12.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary and illegal. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on 26.12.1986 in the District Scheduled
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.
Conclusion
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAOW.P.No.40929 of 2014
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare theproceedings dated 18.12.2014 issued by the 2[nd]respondent as arbitrary and illegal.
Initially, the petitioner was appointed as AssistantExecutive Engineer on 26.12.1986 in the DistrictScheduled Castes Service Co-operation Society, GunturDistrict, on consolidated pay. Thereafter, his serviceswere regularized and he was promoted as DeputyExecutive Engineer on 01.3.2014. While so, he waskept under suspension on the allegation of committingcertain irregularities and misappropriation of fundsbased on a complaint against him lodged by theSC/ST/BC Welfare Association, Guntur, with regard toexecution of work relating to construction of compoundwall. The Deputy Executive Engineer, Quality ControlSub Division, Guntur, inspected the works executed bythe petitioner and submitted his remarks stating that theconstruction of compound wall in APSWRS Complex,Ramakrishnapuram (V), Sattenapalli Mandal, GunturDistrict, was completed satisfactorily. Thereafter,enquiry was ordered and the petitioner was issued witha charge memo dated 18.12.2014, for which he submitted his detailed explanation stating that there isno deviation of procedure or approved work andmoreover no repetition of work was done at any stage.
The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite ofthe remarks submitted by the Deputy ExecutiveEngineer that the work was completed satisfactorily, hewas placed under suspension illegally.
Under these circumstances, the respondents aredirected to complete the enquiry initiated against thepetitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within aperiod of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. However, it is made clear that if theenquiry is not completed within the stipulated period, thepetitioner shall be reinstated into service.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writpetition shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
31[st] December, 2014rkkrkk