Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D Sreenivasulu vs The State Of Ap on 6 August, 2024
1
APHC010176532019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 7596/2019
Between:
D SREENIVASULU, S/O. D.CHOWDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
EX-TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT
AGENCY, O/O. M.P.P. VEERAPUNAYUNIPALLI, YSR DISTRICT, D.NO.
3/254, KADAPA
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R. DISTRICT, KADAPA.
3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT
AGENCY, Y.S.R. DISTRICT, KADAPA.
4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
VEERAPUNAYUNIPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D LINGA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M S R CHANDRA MURTHY
2. G SESHADRI(SC FOR MPP ZPP)
3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with
the following prayer for:
".... a writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents
in not reinstating the petitioner into service as Technical Assistant by
reviewing the order of termination issued by the 3 rd respondent vide
Proc. No. C9/3050/E.G.S/2008-3 dated 21-9-2008 without assigning
any reasons or conducting enquiry consequent to petitioner's
acquittal in CC No. 110/2010 dated 8-6-2018 as arbitrary, illegal,
unjust, opposed to principals of natural justice and in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to hold
that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service as Technical
Assistant with all consequential benefits."
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the
Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was removed from service on the
allegation of criminal misappropriation. It is submitted that, a criminal case in
C.C.No.110 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Kamalapuram has also been registered against the Petitioner by the
Respondent Authorities for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408,
409 and 420 read with 109 of Indian Penal Code and the same was ended in
acquittal vide judgment dated 08.06.2018. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
would further submit that a representation was also submitted to Respondent
No.3, who is the appointing authority to consider the grievance of the
Petitioner and for his reinstatement.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit
that, so far, they have not received any representation of the Petitioner. It is
submitted that Court may pass appropriate orders permitting the Petitioner to
make such representation and then the Authorities may take appropriate
decision over the issue.
4. In that view, it is apposite to dispose of the petition permitting the
Petitioner to make a representation to Respondent No.3, in view of the
acquittal of the Petitioner from the criminal case, seeking his reinstatement
into service and on such representation, Respondent No.3 is directed to pass
appropriate orders according to governing rules and law, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.
5. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
________________________________
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J
Date:06.08.2024
Dinesh
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dt.06.08.2024
Dinesh
