Telangana High Court
WP/22225/2004 of Madugula Janardhana Rao S/o late Ramulu Vs The Commodore Chief Staff Officer (PANDA), on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 22225 of 2004 BETWEEN: Madugula Janardhana Rao S/o late Ramulu, R/o Quarter No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No: 22225 of 2004
BETWEEN:
Madugula Janardhana Rao S/o late Ramulu, R/o Quarter No. A4, Pallavapark, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.
AND
... PETITIONER
1 The Commodore Chief Staff Officer (P&A), Head Quarters, Eastern Navel Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. Navel Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.
2 The Material Superintendent, Materials Organisation, Head Quarters, Eastern Navel Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. Quarters, Eastern Navel Command, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the natureof Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing thepenalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from the Services videorder in CE/910/40, dated 22-7-2004, is illegal, arbitrary, improper andagainst the principles of natural justice and consequently direct therespondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and pass such other ororders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VADDI
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASSTSOLICITOR GEN)
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:
This writ petition is filed for the following substantial relief:
“the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order ordirection more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in imposing the penalty ofcompulsory retirement of the petitioner from the Services vide orderin CE/910/40, dated 22-7-2004, is illegal, arbitrary, improper andagainst the principles of natural justice and consequently direct therespondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and pass suchother or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
2. Though at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner is notpresent, a letter has been addressed by the learned counsel to the Registrywherein he mentioned that there is no requirement for the petitioner to pursuethis writ petition.
In view of the same, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed aswithdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J