Telangana High Court
WP/27012/2006 of Shaik Sardar, Vs The Superintendent Engineer, on 27 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 27012 of 2006 Oral order: It is the case of the petitioner that he is senior to the 3rd respondent, but the 1st respondent ignoring his seniority, has promoted the 3rd respondent as Senior Line Inspector, which according to him is illegal and arbitrary.
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
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAW.P. No. 27012 of 2006
Oral order:
It is the case of the petitioner that he is senior to the 3[rd]respondent, but the 1[st] respondent ignoring his seniority, haspromoted the 3[rd] respondent as Senior Line Inspector, whichaccording to him is illegal and arbitrary.
According to the own admission of the petitioner, he sufferedpunishment of stoppage of three increments in 1978, and recently on23.11.2006, the 2[nd] respondent issued him a charge memo on certainallegations, to which he submitted his explanation on 26.12.2006. It isthe contention of the petitioner that without passing any orders on hisexplanation, on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pendingagainst him, the 1[st] respondent ignoring his seniority, has promotedthe 3[rd] respondent, who is junior to him. The disciplinary proceedingsinitiated against the petitioner are at the embryonic stage, and thepetitioner cannot assume for himself that because of the disciplinaryproceedings initiated against him, he was not promoted, and more sowhen no punishment was imposed against him Be that as it may, inasmuch as the petitioner has alreadysubmitted his explanation to the charge memo only on 26.12.2006,and filed the writ petition immediately after two days without givingsufficient time for the official respondents to consider his explanation, Ideem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the followingdirections:
The 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the explanation dated 26.12.2006 submitted bythe petitioner to the charge memo dated 23.11.2006 within a period ofeight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Date: 27[th] December, 2006.KSR
_________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.