HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.29389 of 2009
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
03) 05-03- CVNR, J
2010 WP.No.29389 of 2009
Rule Nisi. Call for records. Notice
returnable in four weeks.
_____________________________
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J
WVMP.No.663 of 2010 in/&
WPMP.No.38038 of 2009
The petitioner, who is an Additional Public
Prosecutor in the Court of the III Additional
Sessions Court (FTC I) Nalgonda, was kept Full
Additional Charge (for short 'FAC') of the post of
Public Prosecutor in Principal Sessions Court,
Nalgonda, by Order, dated
20-03-2006, of respondent No.2. A f t e r being
continued for more than 3 ½ years as FAC, the petitioner was relieved therefrom, and one Sri T.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor of I Additional Sessions Court, Nalgonda, was kept as FAC in his place, by proceedings, dated 22-12-2009 of respondent No.2. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition questioning the said proceedings, on the ground that the same are stigmatic in nature.
Counter-affidavit along with vacate stay application is filed by the respondents, wherein it is inter alia stated that the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, by proceedings, dated 21-12-2009, informed them that Sri M.Narayana Rao, President, Bar Association, Nalgonda, has given a representation containing certain allegations against the (p.t.o.,) CVNR, J CVNR, J SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. (contd...) NOTE petitioner, by annexing a complaint, received by him from one Chokkalla Paripurna Chary, along with a paper clipping and that the District Judge, having regard to the serious nature of the allegations, opined that it is not desirable to continue the petitioner as FAC to the said post and requested them to relieve him and appoint another person in his place till a regular appointment is made. Respondent No.2 has, accordingly, justified his action in relieving the petitioner.
Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the impugned order was passed without enquiry and that the allegations made therein against the petitioner cast stigma on him.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home stated that the petitioner is appointed in substantive post of Additional Public Prosecutor, for a term of three years, and that he was only kept as FAC as there was no regular appointment made thereto.
With respect to the allegations on which the petitioner was relieved, prima facie, I am of the opinion that without holding a proper enquiry and giving the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the same, the impugned order was passed. However, admittedly, the petitioner was kept Full Additional Charge of the post of Public Prosecutor without following the procedure prescribed under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as evident from Proceedings, dated 20-03-2006. Therefore, no right came to be vested in him to continue in the said post. Respondent No.2, who appointed the petitioner, is always entitled to relieve him and appoint another person in his place. Therefore, interim order, dated 06-01-2010, as extended by order, dated 01-02-2010, is modified as under:
(contd...) CVNR, J (contd...) Interim order of suspension to the extent of relieving the petitioner from FAC of the post of Public Prosecutor, District and Sessions Court, Nalgonda, vide impugned order, dated 22-12-2009, Nalgonda, vide impugned order, dated 22-12-2009, SL. DATE ORDER is vacated. However, the allegations, based on OFFICE NO. NOTE which the impugned order was passed, shall not affect the interest of the petitioner as Additional Publ i c Prosecutor in the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC I), Nalgonda, which office he is holding on a tenure basis. The said allegations shall not be made basis either for removing the petitioner from the post of the Additional Public Prosecutor or while considering his claim for re- appointment to the said post, until a regular enquiry is held and an appropriate order is passed against him.
______________________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J lur SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE BN, J & GC, J (Contd...) The learned single Judge found that respondents 2 to 4 in the Writ Petition were not eligible to be promoted and they had been promoted although they were ineligible.
Respondents 2 to 4 have, now, filed an appeal with a delay of 164 days. Let the respondents file their counter to the application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal.
There has been no stay of the judgment of the SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE learned single Judge. But the judgment of the learned single Judge is not being implemented from 29-12--2004. On last occasion also, we have told the learned Counsel for the appellant that the judgment needs to be implemented, and today, she has produced a copy of the letter received by Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate. This letter is nothing but an attempt to defeat the judgment of this Court in avoiding to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion. The relevant portion of this letter reads as under:
'Once the vacancies a r e cleared, we are interested to consider the case of Mr.D.Harinatha Reddy, as it was submitted to the Court. H e n c e , we request you to put forth (P.T.O.,) BN, J & GC, J (Contd...) the above information before t h e Court and request t h e Court and request SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE learned Judge to give time NO. NOTE up to March, 2006. We request you to use your good office to appraise the Court and to protect Bank's interest'.
This letter merely says that once the vacancies were cleared, the Bank was interested to consider the case. It nowhere shows any urgency to implement the order of the Court. Vacancies can be cleared after decade or two decades. Therefore, we feel that the appellant in this appeal is, prima facie, in Contempt of this Court.
Issue notice to the appellant-Sri P.Gopala Krishna, Chairman, Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Chittoor, as to why Contempt Proceedings be not initiated against him. He shall file counter within two weeks and shall remain present on the next date of hearing.
List on 21-03-2006.
______________ 07-03-
2006lur SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE BN, J & SAR, J Application No.122 of 2006 SL. DATE Application No.122 of 2006 ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE BN, J & SAR, J Application No.122 of 2006 This application has been filed by respondent No.3-applicant seeking extension of time and also seeking prayer that the respondents should give a set off f o r Rs.93,31,706/- (Rupees ninety three lakhs thirty one thousand seven hundred and six only) which according to him are the losses suffered by him.
That is a matter, which will have to be gone into before taking a decision on the question whether the petitioner suffered any losses and if so, whether he is entitled to recover those losses in these proceedings. Therefore, at this stage, we cannot allow the prayer of the applicant that he should be permitted to deposit only Rs2,06,68,294/- (Rupees two crores six lakhs sixty eight thousand two hundred and ninety four only) and not Rs.3.17 crores.
At this stage, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has no objection if the property is put to fresh auction, but it should not be taken as adjudication of his claim to the compensation and losses.
BN, J & SAR, J (Contd...) This issue will be decided after a counter is filed to the present application.
As far as the extension of time is concerned, the request of the applicant is rejected and the official liquidator is at liberty to put the property to fresh auction as the applicant has also conceded that fresh auction may be allowed. The fresh auction may be allowed. The SL. DATE be entitled to participate OFFICE applicant also willORDER NO. NOTE in the fresh auction. T h e Earned Money Deposit (EMD) already paid by the applicant to the extent of Rs.17 lakhs, when the property was put to auction earlier, may be returned to the applicant.
______________ 03-02-2006 lur SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE