Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G.Yesudas vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh. on 28 June, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: W.P.No. 19808 of 2020
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
6. 24.06.2024 DR.KMR,J
Ms. P. Vijaya Kumari, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned Assistant Government
Pleader, Endowments for the respondents are
present.
Learned Government Pleader for the
respondents submitted that already the petitioner
had filed W.P.No. 21566 of 2015 before this Court
declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in
terminating the petitioner's service vide
proceedings dated 09.11.2013 and rejection of the
Appeal dated 01.05.2015 by the 2nd respondent as
illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside
the same and direct the respondents to reinstate
the petitioner into service with all consequential
benefits.
The respondents filed counter-affidavit in
W.P.No. 21566 of 2015 and copy of the same is
filed across the bench.
During pendency of the said Writ Petition a
case in C.C.No.151 of 2013 against the petitioner
is ended in acquittal for the offence under Section
411 of IPC and convicted for the offence under
Section 380 of IPC. Assailing the same, Criminal
Appeal No. 188 of 2016 has been preferred on the
file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge,
Kurnool and the same was allowed setting aside
the judgment of the trial court and the matter was
remanded to the trial court with a direction to
frame appropriate charge against the petitioner,
re-appreciate the same and pass judgment afresh
within three months.
Subsequently, the petitioner made a
representation dated 20.09.2018 to the 3rd
respondent to consider his case for reinstatement
as he was out of employment from the date of
termination in view of Judgment in C.C.No.151 of
2013, dated 14.08.2018.
It is contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the 3rd respondent instructed
the petitioner that he has to wait for 2 years for
maintain good behaviour as stated in the order
dated 14.08.2018. The petitioner had completed 2
years as of 15.08.2020 and no complaints were
registered against him. Therefore, the petitioner
made representation dated 17.08.2020 to
reconsider the petitioner's case in view of the
judgments cited supra. But the respondents failed
to consider the same. Hence, the present writ
petition came to be filed.
Learned Government Pleader for the
respondents submitted that the petitioner has
filed two writ petition by claiming similar reliefs
and the counter-affidavit had already been filed in
earlier writ petition for consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on
record the proceedings issued by the
Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada vide
L.Dis.No.C1/13025(40)/7/2023,dated 18.02.2023
stating that the request for reinstatement of the
petitioner into service was rejected. Learned
counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that
the appeal was preferred in 2014 and rejected the
appeal in the year 2015. Again the respondents
passed rejection order in the year 2023 i.e after
long elapse of 9 years, which is highly illegal and
arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contended that the petitioner made representation
to the respondents for his reinstatement, after
attained finality in the criminal case cited supra,
but in vain.
Therefore, inaction of the respondents is
questioned in this writ petition.
In view of the submissions made by both
the counsel, it is essential to answer such issues
in detail.
Therefore, Registry is directed to list this
matter along with W.P.No. 21566 of 2015 side by
side, after obtaining necessary permission from
the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Pursuant to the direction of this Court
dated 27.06.2024, the 3rd respondent appeared
in-person today. Therefore, his presence is
dispensed with for the present.
Post on 12.07.2024.
Meanwhile, the respondents are directed to
file counter-affidavit, finally.
____________
DR.KMR,J
KK
