SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16029

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Madhavi Devi, J
Md. Sirajuddin – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and another – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.17947 OF 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. Vidyasagar
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Home

A petitioner removed from service may be permitted to make a fresh representation to the appellate authority if a subsequent acquittal in a related criminal case, based on the same facts, was not considered during the initial appeal.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the order dated 26.09.2017 removing them from service and the subsequent appellate order dated 23.07.2019 confirming the removal. It was submitted that the petitioner had been acquitted in a related criminal case on 27.07.2018, but this fact was not brought to the notice of the appellate authority before the dismissal of the appeal. The court found it necessary to allow the petitioner to present the acquittal judgment for reconsideration. The primary issue is whether the petitioner should be permitted to make a fresh representation to the appellate authority in light of an acquittal in a criminal case based on the same facts. The court reasoned that since the criminal proceedings ended in acquittal on the same facts, the petitioner should be allowed to seek a review of the removal order. the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2 within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of copy of representation.

Table of Content
1. challenge to removal from service and the impact of a subsequent criminal acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. permission to file a fresh representation based on acquittal in related criminal proceedings. (Para 4)

ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the order/proceedings dated 26.09.2017 removing the petitioner from service and also the order of appellate authority dated 23.07.2019 confirming the removal order, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to set aside the same and reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents.

3. While reiterating the contentions raised in the writ affidavit, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that along with the disciplinary proceedings, criminal proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges in the criminal case in C.C.No.346 of 2016, on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad vide order dated 27.07.2018. It is submitted that though the appeal was filed before the acquittal in the criminal case, the factum of acquittal in the criminal case was not brought to the notice of the appellate authority and the order of dismissal of the appeal has been passed. Therefore, he seeks permission of this Court to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2 along with judgment of the criminal Court in C.C.No.346 of 2016 and prayed that the respondent No.2 be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously.

3. Having regard to the above submissions and particularly, since on the very same facts, the criminal case has ended in acquittal, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2 within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of copy of representation.

4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top