Telangana High Court
WP/41633/2015 of G. Sivananda Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2015
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.41633 of 2015 Between: G. Sivananda Reddy, S/o. G. Pulla Reddy, Aged about
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OFANDHRA PRADESH
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWOTHOUSAND AND FIFTEEN
Present
Between:
G. Sivananda Reddy,S/o. G. Pulla Reddy,Aged about 27 years,Occ: Field Assistant,R/o. Chillavaripalli Gram Panchayat,Tadimarri Mandal,Anantapuram District.
.. Petitioner
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by its Principal Secretary,Panchayat Raj Department,Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad & 3 others
.. Respondents
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:
The petitioner is a Field Assistant. As a consequence tothe disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by order, dated20.08.2015, services of the petitioner were removed. Challenging the said order, this writ petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend thatthe explanation filed by the petitioner was not properlyappreciated and his explanation is rejected without assigningproper reasons.
3. Learned Special Counsel for the 3[rd] respondentcontended that as per the Field Assistants Human ResourcesPolicy, an appeal shall lie to the District Collector against theorder of removal passed by the Project Director. In the instantcase, the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy of appealwithout directly invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Prima facie, on a reading of the order, it cannot besaid that the order is not a speaking order. If it is the case of thepetitioner that the Project Director has not considered theexplanation of the petitioner in right perspective, it is always opento him to raise those contentions in the appeal provided to himunder the Human Resources Policy. Without exhausting the remedy of appeal, this writ petition is instituted. When thepetitioner has an effective remedy of appeal provided under theHuman Resources Policy by which he was appointed, the writpetition is not maintainable. It cannot be said that the remedy ofappeal provided by the policy is not an effective and efficaciousremedy warranting interference of this Court at this stage.
5. Thus, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it opento the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal which shall lie tothe District Collector, Anantapuram, Anantapuram District (2[nd]respondent), against the order of removal passed by the ProjectDirector, District Water Management Corporation, Anantapuram,Anantapuram District (3[rd] respondent), dated 20.08.2015. As andwhen such an appeal is filed, the District Collector shall considerthe same objectively and pass appropriate orders, as warrantedby law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receiptof copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shallstand closed.
_____________________
P.NAVEEN RAO, J
Date: 30[th] December, 2015
KL
Date: 30[th] December, 2015
KL