Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, G.M.Mohiuddin
Patti Balakrishna – Appellant
Versus
Director General – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under article 226. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. assertion of dismissal and grounds for challenge. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent's defense and justification. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. evaluation of delay and limitations. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. merits of the dismissal order analyzed. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. final ruling and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
Heard Sri P.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri N.B.Sudarshan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3; and Sri B.Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.4 and perused the record.
2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayer:-
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to set aside the dismissal order issued vide impugned orders No. Vig./VC-1/2009/54, dated 22-9-2011 by the 1 Respondent herein and the orders passed in M.A
A dismissal order may be upheld if the employee fails to assert timely challenges and does not provide credible explanations for absence or delay, aligning with principles of administrative law.
The rejection of benefits must be based on a proper application of mind, and disciplinary action must be conducted expeditiously with appropriate evidence.
The court's decision highlighted the discretionary nature of issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and emphasized the limited scope for interference in disciplinary matters, u....
Dismissal from service without a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice; reopening previously settled charges is impermissible.
The dismissal of the petitioner was set aside due to procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice, entitling him to retiral benefits.
Dismissal without a hearing violates natural justice; a second inquiry on previously dropped charges is impermissible.
The standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings differ, affecting the relevancy of acquittal.
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
