IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A.V. SESHA SAI, V. SRINIVAS, JJ.
S. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. S. Ch. Kasaiah - Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 23253 of 2004
Decided On : 01-09-2022
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article, 226 – Power of High Court to issue certain writs –g Applicant petitioner herein was initially appointed as Police Constable ground that petitioner herein along with certain others participated in Dharna APSP Battalion Headquarters disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Constables including petitioner – Held, Court opinion same is not fatal to case of petitioner herein since State Government rejected request of petitioner vide memo eventually – Court has absolutely no hesitation to hold that order passed by Tribunal which is impugned in present Writ Petition is neither sustainable nor tenable eye of law – Case drive this court towards an irresistible conclusion that Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction and dismissed Original Application – Writ Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
A.V. Sesha Sai, J.
Challenge in the present Writ Petition is, to the Order dated 06.10.2004, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) in O.A.No.10502 of 2002 and the Memo No.32921/Police.D/A1/2000-4 dated 17.04.2002 issued by the 1st respondent State Government.
2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances, leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as under :
The applicant/petitioner herein was initially appointed as Police Constable on 15.05.1977. On the ground that the petitioner herein along with certain others participated in Dharna at the APSP Battalion Headquarters, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against 28 Constables including the petitioner. The Commandant, 2nd Battalion, APSP Kurnool, Kurnool District-3rd respondent herein passed an Order vide proceedings P.R.212/81, dated 14.06.1984, inflicting on the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner herein approached the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh by filing a Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by the composite High Court, directing the petitioner herein to avail the alternative remedy by filing Departmental Appeal, with a further direction to reinstate the petitioner into service. In pursuance of the said order, the respondent authorities reinstated the applicant/petitioner herein into service on 31.10.1984. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Director General and Inspector General of Police-2nd respondent herein, against the orders of punishment dated 14.06.1984 and the Director General and Inspector General of Police 2nd respondent herein vide proceedings R.C.No.520/T2/85, dated 10.05.1985, rejected the said appeal filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, enclosing a copy of the order passed by the Tribunal in R.P.No.953 of 1987 and batch filed by the similarly situated Police Constables, petitioner herein submitted a representation to extend the same benefit in terms of the orders in the said R.P.No.953 of 1987 and batch. Subsequently, the State Government issued an order vide G.O.Rt.No.1268, Home (Police...D) Department, dated 16.05.1990, turning down the request of the petitioner herein, on the ground that the petitioner did not approach the Court and as his appeal was rejected by the 2ndrespondent herein and as the petitioner admitted the charges and did not raise any valid grounds.
3. Assailing the validity of the said orders of the State Government, petitioner herein approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.SR.No.4358 of 1992 with M.A.No.1266 of 1992, for condonation of delay. The said Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of delay, but made the following observations :
4. Thereafter, while referring to the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, the State Government issued an order vide G.O.Ms.No.145, Home (Poilce.D) Department dated 07.03.1994, modifying the punishment to that of RTSP by 3 stages for a period of three (03) years with cumulative effect, while directing that the period of
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary orders must comply with the principles and provisions of the applicable rules and regulations, including the requirement for vali....
The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of appeals and writ petitions, the inability of successive representations to condone delay, and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplin....
Court held that a reinstated individual, upon acquittal and in compliance with training rules, is entitled to stipend during training and notional benefits thereafter, but not salary for unserved per....
In cases of common inquiries, equitable relief must be granted to parties situated similarly, regardless of delays in filing applications.
The punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings must be proportionate to the charges levelled against the employee, and the court's review is limited to ensuring procedural fairness and proportion....
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's power and clarified that outcomes of mercy petitions are not subject to judicial review.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.