Back
SUREPALLI NANDA
Ch. Sudhakar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home.
2. This Court vide its order dated 28.04.2022 was pleased to order W.P.M.P. No. 28660 of 2017 in W.P. No. 576 of 2017. As per the amended prayer, the prayer of the petitioner in the present writ petition is as follows:
Petitioner without assigning any reasons and same amounts to clear discrimination and same is in clear violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
Fundamental Rule 54-A(3) clearly stipulates that if the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on merits of the case.
The duty of the competent authority to consider and pass specific orders regarding pay, allowances, and the treatment of the suspension period as duty, and the principles of natural justice in afford....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once the punishment of removal from service is set aside by the Court of Law, Rule 54-A(3) of the Fundamental Rules has to be invoked to treat....
Even though there is no express requirement in Fundamental Rule 54[3] for giving an opportunity to employee before passing an order, giving of such an opportunity is implicit in the exercise of power....
The discretion conferred by Fundamental Rule 54 in regulating the period of absence as duty with full salary is apparent and explicit, and the claim of an employee to treat the period as duty with fu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
