Amar Bin Saleh vs The Director Of Animal Husbandry ...

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
                                AND
            HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
              WRIT PETITION No.14457 of 2005
                       Date:25.11.2021

Between:

Amar Bin Saleh, S/o. Saleh Bin Aslam,
Veterinary Assistant, Parupally Rural
Liver Stock Unit, Nalgonda.


                                         .....Petitioner

     And


The Director of Animal Husbandry
A.P., Hyderabad and others.

                                         .....Respondents

The Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.14457 of 2005 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao) Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services - I, for the respondents.

2. Petitioner filed O.A.No.6540 of 2004, challenging the order of suspension from service dated 14.07.2004 and charge memo dated 08.10.2004. The challenge was on the ground that on the very same set of facts, the prosecution was launched against petitioner and learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nalgonda, convicted him under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C in C.C.No.255 of 1995. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred Crl.Appl.No.90 of 1999 and the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge at Nalgonda acquitted the petitioner. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings are not maintainable since an acquittal is granted by the competent Court. On due consideration of the material on record, the Tribunal did not agree with the contention as to not to conduct disciplinary proceedings merely because an acquittal was granted and dismissed O.A.No.6540 of 2004 at the stage of admission. The Court also declined to stay the judgment of the Tribunal and dismissed the W.P.M.P.No.18363 of 2005.

3. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that having regard to the issue involved, the Tribunal has arrived at the correct conclusion in holding that there is no absolute bar in conducting departmental proceedings, even when there is acquittal granted by -3- the competent Court. We do not see any error in the view taken by the tribunal.

4. Since no stay is granted against the conducting of disciplinary proceedings in the writ petition and O.A.No.6540 of 2004 was instituted against suspension from service and charge memo and the fact that petitioner retired from service, no cause survives for consideration in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J __________________ P.SREE SUDHA,J 25th November, 2021 Pt/Tvk -4- HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.14457 of 2005 Date: 25.11.2021 Pt/Tvk