Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Nooty Ramamohana Rao and Anis, JJ.
Mohammed Yakub Ali - Appellant
Vs.
State of Telangana and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 28539 of 2014
Decided On: 12.08.2015
Service – Demand of Illegal gratification – Writ petition is directed against order passed by Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal – Writ petitioner joined the services of the Revenue Department of the State Government earned promotions as Senior Assistant and Office Superintendent on respectively– It appears, one is reported to have fallen down in Revenue Office premises on 16.03.1999 and received head injuries and he died of such an injury son of said Sri has lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau on alleging that due to the demand of illegal gratification for issuing a local area residence certificate died complaint was registered by Anti Corruption Bureau, but however, a report was submitted to the State Government that there was not sufficient evidence for prosecuting the staff of Revenue Officers Office effectively – Consequently State Government decided to place the staff of the M.R. Os office namely the M.R.O, the writ petitioner-the Office Superintendent of Office of Revenue Inspector and Sri A Junior Assistant – Held, Tribunal has rendered its order in instituted by this very petitioner as long back as on present writ petition is preferred on more than years after said order is passed – No explanation worth the consideration was offered in this writ petition as to why the writ petitioner is approaching this Court after lapse of six years no period of limitation is prescribed for preferring a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution, but nonetheless, a writ petition is liable to be instituted within a reasonable and proximate period of one year – At any rate a period of three years, which is a reasonable period for anyone to ventilate his grievance and seek enforcement of one legal rights appears to be spirit behind prescribing said three years period as period of limitation under Limitation Act, 1961, for various causes of action taking a clue there from, if a party to a proceeding before Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal does not approach High Court concerned within one year period or at any rate within three year period such writ petitions cannot be entertained in normal course unless an exceptional case is made out for entertaining any such writ petition –Administrative Tribunal has missed to note the distinction between the two different advices tendered by the Vigilance Commissioner – In fact, it made no attempt to analyze as to the reasons why the Vigilance Commissioners advise was solicited twice all over by the State Government Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal has glossed over the fact that in between these 2 different occasions there was a show cause notice which has been issued to the two charged officers by the State Government proposing to impose a major punishment on them. After the first advice was tendered by Vigilance Commissioner on State Government in their Revenue Department through their memo has drawn a show cause notice calling for the explanation of the writ petitioner herein as to why a major punishment should not be imposed on them. A look at the orders passed by the State Government through their would disclose that writ petitioner herein has offered his explanation to the said show cause notice on State Government once again solicited the advice of the Vigilance Commissioner before it finalized the punishment, and it is in that context – Writ petition stand dismissed.
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on 22.08.2008 in O.A. No. 4829 of 2008, preferred by the petitioner herein.
2. The writ petitioner joined the services of the Revenue Department of the State Government as L.D. Clerk on 28.11.1969. He earned promotions as Senior Assistant and Office Superintendent on 05.10.1978 and 09.01.1998 respectively. At the relevant point of time, the writ petitioner was working as Office Superintendent in the office of the Mandal Revenue Office, Manuguru, Khammam District. It appears, one Mr. B. Mallaiah is reported to have fallen down in the Mandal Revenue Office premises on 16.03.1999 and received head injuries and he died of such an injury. The son of said Sri Mallaiah has lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau on 05.04.1999 alleging that due to the demand of illegal gratification for issuing a local area residence certificate, Sri B. Malliah died. The complaint was registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, but however, a report was submitted to the State Government that there was not sufficient evidence for prosecuting the staff of the Mandal Revenue Officers Office effectively. Consequently, the State Government decided to place the staff of the M.R. Os office Manuguru namely the M.R.O, the writ petitioner-the Office Superintendent of the Office of the M.R.O, Smt. K. Venkata Lakshmi-Revenue Inspector and Sri A. Ramulu-Junior Assistant, on defence. The Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings concluded the enquiry and submitted its report to the State Government on 07.12.2001. It appears, the State Government solicited the advice of the Vigilance Commissioner. The Vigilance Commissioner, after objectively considering the report of the Tribunal for the disciplinary proceedings in T.E.C. No. 20/2000 recommended to the State Government on 09.07.2003 to reject the explanation submitted by the charged officers against the report of the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings and advised the department may consider imposing the punishment of removal/dismissal on the two charged officers for the lapses held proved against them. However, there appears to be another recommendation by the Vigilance Commissioner on 16.06.2005 recommending to the State Government that the charged officers be removed, as advised earlier. Thereafter, the State Government passed orders on 08.09.2005 through their G.O. Ms. No. 1626 Revenue (Vig.II) Department dated 08.09.2005 imposing the punishment of removal from service on the writ petitioner. It appears, that the petitioner has submitted a review petition on 17.11.2005 requesting the State Government to reconsider the orders of punishment imposed through G.O. Ms. No. 1626 Revenue (Vig.II) Department dated 08.09.2005. That was rejected by the State Government on 11.06.2007 by their memo. Hence, calling in question the validity of the orders passed by the State Government contained in their G.O. Ms. No. 1626 Revenue (Vig.II) Department dated 08.09.2005 and the rejection of review petition through their memo dated 11.06.2007, the writ petitioner instituted O.A. No. 4829 of 2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.
3. It appears, the State Government passed orders through their G.O. Ms. No. 1627 Revenue (Vig.II) Department dated 08.09.2005 imposing a similar punishment of removal from service on Smt. K. Venkata Lakshmi-Revenue Inspector. Smt. K. Venkata Lakshmi appears to have instituted O.A. No. 5994 of 2005 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal calling in question the validity of the orders passed by the State Government contained in their G.O. Ms. No. 1627 Revenue (Vig.II) Department dated 08.09.2005. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, appears to have passed orders allowing the said O.A. It has rejected various contentions canvassed before it, but however, allowed O.A. No. 5994 of 2005 placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Divisio
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
