Telangana High Court
WA/1247/2006 of K.L.H.Prasada Rao, Vs the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., on 28 December 2006
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.1247 of 2006 And Writ Petition No.11878 of 2005 Between K.L.H.Prasada Rao ..Appellant AND The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and another ..Respondents :: JUDGMENT :: Counsel for the
HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICEANDHON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WritAppeal No.1247 of 2006AndWrit Petition No.11878 of 2005
Between
K.L.H.Prasada Rao
..Appellant
AND
The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., ..Respondentsand another
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.
:: JUDGMENT ::
Counsel for the appellant
Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, SeniorCounsel assisted by Sri GanduriNageswara Rao Counsel for respondents Sri B.Narasimha Sharma 28.12.2006
Per Sri G.S.Singhvi, CJ.
This appeal is directed against order dated 2.11.2006 passedby the learned Single Judge in WPMP No.15133 of 2005 in WVMPNo.2908 of 2005 in Writ Petition No.11878 of 2005.
In the main writ petition filed by him, the petitioner has prayedfor quashing the departmental proceedings initiated against him videMemo dated 12.4.2002 on the ground that the documents, which havebearing on the charges, have not been supplied to him.
It is borne out from the record of the appeal that Writ PetitionNo.5846 of 2005 filed by the appellant with similar complaint wasdisposed of by the learned Single Judge on 22.3.2005 by directing therespondents to supply copies of documents, which would be used bythe department in the enquiry. The relevant portions of that order readas under:
“The only grievance of the writ petitioner is that thecopies of documents and statements, recorded during thepreliminary enquiry, have not been supplied to the petitioner,and therefore, the petitioner cannot be in a position to proceedwith the departmental enquiry.
On the other hand, the learned standing Counsel for therespondents contended that copies of documents, sought to berelied on by the department in the departmental enquiry, will besupplied to the petitioner before commencement of trial of thedepartmental enquiry.
Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, therespondents are directed to supply copies of documents, whichthe department intends to use the same in the departmental enquiry, to the petitioner.”
Immediately after disposal of Writ Petition No.5846 of 2005, theappellant represented for supply of documents and then filed WritPetition No.11878 of 2005 for quashing of Memo dated 12.4.2002 on the ground of non-supply of documents. He also filedWPMP No.15133 of 2005. While issuing notice on 19.5.2005, thelearned Single Judge granted interim stay. Thereafter, therespondents filed WVMP No.2908 of 2005, which was allowed by thelearned Single Judge on 2.11.2006 and the ad-interim order wasvacated.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents brought toour notice that copies of 38 documents specified in annexure III, whichforms part of the memo of charges, were supplied to the defenceassistant of the appellant on 28.6.2004. In support of his assertion, SriSharma produced attested xerox copy of the receipt, which is said tohave been given by the defence assistant of the appellant. Learnedcounsel further stated that in compliance of the order passed by thisCourt in Writ Petition No.5846 of 2005, telegrams were sent to theappellant to appear and again obtain copies of the documents, but hedid not avail the opportunity.
Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant did not seriously controvert the statement of Sri Sharma, butsubmitted that the Court may direct the respondents to supply anothercomplete set of papers to the appellant, so that he may adequatelydefend himself in the disciplinary proceedings.
Sri Narasimha Sharma responded to the submission of Sri Ramachandra Rao by saying that if the appellant appears on theappointed date, another set of the copies of documents mentioned in annexure III appended to the charge sheet, will be supplied to him.
We appreciate the fair statements made by the learned counseland dispose of the appeal with the following directions:
1) The appellant shall appear before the enquiry officer on 8.1.2007,on which date the officer concerned shall supply complete set ofxerox copies of 38 documents specified in annexure III appendedto the charge sheet.on which date the officer concerned shall supply complete set ofxerox copies of 38 documents specified in annexure III appendedto the charge sheet.
2) If the appellant is desirous of obtaining copies of otherdocuments, then he may make applications under the relevantrules. Such applications must be disposed of by the competentauthorities in accordance with law.documents, then he may make applications under the relevantrules. Such applications must be disposed of by the competentauthorities in accordance with law.
At this stage, learned counsel for the parties jointly stated thatthe main writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of the aboveorder.
The joint request of the learned counsel for the parties isaccepted and Writ Petition No.11878 of 2005 is disposed of in the lightof the order passed in the writ appeal.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ appeal, WAMP No.2603 of2006 filed by the appellant for suspending the order impugned in thisappeal is disposed of as infructuous.
G.S.SINGHVI, CJ
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J