VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
M. Veeranna Raju, S/o. Daniel – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary – Respondent
ORDER :
(Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.)
1. Since the matters involved are regarding the same Petitioner on similar issues, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
Brief Pleadings of the W.Ps.
2. Before venturing into the determination, it is essential to draw the contours of necessary facts that are emanating from the W.Ps.
A. W.P.No.14280 of 2019
3. The brief facts as stated in the Writ Petition, are that;
a) Petitioner was initially appointed as a Forest Section Officer by way of direct recruitment on 05.12.2005. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Range Officer in June, 2009 and as such, posted to Vijayawada territorial section.
b) On 09.12.2013, the Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry/ Respondent No.3, based on the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, (D.F.O.) Vigilance III, Hyderabad, dated 20.11.2012, issued Articles of Charge under Rule-20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1991,[Hereinafter referred to as A.P.C.S.(CCA) Rules, 1991] alleging that the Petitioner failed to detect unauthorized saw mills, private timber depots and saw mill-cumdepots in Vijayawada Range until the same were detected by the D.F
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465
Bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd. v. B. Dasappa
Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam, (2005) 3 SCC 241, 2005 SCC (L&S) 395
Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn.
Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 719
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.
J. Venkatamani v. Prl. Scy. Vigilance and others
Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee
Moni Shankar v. Union of India
Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra
Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank
Sher Bahadur v. Union of India
State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan
State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra Venkata Rao
State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr v. Akhilesh Jha & Anr., LL 2021 SC 436
State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava, (2006) 3 SCC 276
V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.), 1980 Supp SCC 249, 1980 SCC (Cri) 849
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses; failure to do so invalidates penalties imposed.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural fairness as outlined in Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, and unjustified delays render penalties void.
The principles of natural justice require that a delinquent employee be given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the ....
Point of law: Whenever an inquiring authority is to be appointed for conducting enquiry under the said rules, they are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates f....
Point of law: The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee issued, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of Government employee, but in the public interest and also in ....
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.