Telangana High Court
WP/39537/2014 of D.Anjaneyulu Vs Govt of AP on 30 December 2014
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY THIS THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.39537 of 2014 Between: D. Anjaneyulu ..... PETITIONER And The Govt. of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
TUESDAY THIS THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.39537 of 2014
Between:
D. Anjaneyulu
And
..... PETITIONER
The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Dept., Hyderabad and two others
.....RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAOWRIT PETITION No.39537 of 2014
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:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugnedproceedings No.K10/1374/2014, dated 26.05.2014 of the third respondent inremoving the petitioner temporarily and ordering for recovery and contrary tothe enquiry report and quash the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary, andviolation of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct therespondents to reinstate and continue the petitioner into service as FieldAssistant with all consequential benefits.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he submittedexplanation to the charge memo in May, 2014, so far no enquiry has beeninitiated.
4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition isdisposed of directing the respondents to complete the enquiry, if at all anyenquiry is contemplated and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a periodof four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be noorder as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed inconsequence.
___________________
R.KANTHA RAO,J
Date: 30.12.2014Ccm
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.39537 of 2014
Date:30.12.2014