IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Nagesh Bheemapaka
V. SATHISH – Appellant
Versus
ADDL. D.G.P., CID, T.S. HYD. – Respondent
ORDER :
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
The petitioner was an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) in the Fingerprint Bureau of Warangal (Rural). He was dismissed from service by the 3rd respondent-Additional Director General of Police, vide Proceedings dated 31.07.2017. Petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 31.07.2017 as arbitrary, biased, and procedurally flawed enquiry process, and contrary to facts and law. He seeks reinstatement with full consequential benefits, by treating the suspension period as “on duty”.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the writ affidavit, are that the petitioner joined the Indian Army in 2001 as a Craftsman in Telecommunication and Radio wing. Following his father’s demise, he requested discharge to take care of his mother, as he was the only son. The Army accepted his request and issued a “Combined Certificate of Discharge and Recommendation for Civil Employment,” which classified him as a "non-ex-serviceman" due to the insufficient length of service and voluntary discharge.
2.1 On 26.02.2009, the Andhra Pradesh State Level Police Recruitment Board issued a notification calling for applications for several posts, including that of Stipendiary Trainee Assistant Sub-I
Allahabad Bank vs. Krishna Narayan Tiwari
State of Uttaranchal vs. Kharak Singh
Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Om Prakash Gupta
K.L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of India
Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police
Sher Bahadur vs. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.