Police Ravi vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2015 Tel

Item No.2

       THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                          AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


                          W.A.No.1216 OF 2018

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ

petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2018, passed by the

learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.12685 of 2018 filed by him for

issuance of a writ of Mandamus, for declaring as illegal, the order dated

11.12.2017    passed    by    the   respondent    No.2/District   Collector,

Mahabubnagar, removing him from service and directing the respondent

No.7/Mandal Parishad Development Officer to ensure that the charge of

the records in the Mandal is handed over by him at once.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner states that the

learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition, inasmuch as

the appellant/writ petitioner was a regular employee working under the

respondents and he has been removed from service without following the

due process. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the

appellant/writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge observed that as per

the proceedings dated 30.08.2017, the appellant/writ petitioner had joined

in the place of one Mr. B.Srinivasulu who was facing a departmental

enquiry and later on, the said person was reinstated into service in terms

of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. In view of the

reinstatement of Mr.B.Srinivasulu, the appellant/writ petitioner, who

was working as a Mate and was permitted to work as a Senior Mate as a

stop gap arrangement, was directed to handover the charge. Resultantly,

the writ petition was dismissed as meritless.

3. We have repeatedly requested learned counsel for the

appellant/writ petitioner to substantiate his submission that the

appellant/writ petitioner was working as a Senior Mate even earlier to the

issuance of the proceedings dated 30.08.2017. He has not been able to

demonstrate the same. Instead, learned counsel alludes to certain

payment orders dated 03.07.2017 issued by the Mahatma Gandhi

National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) which

reveals that a honorarium of Rs.10,332/- was being paid to the

appellant/writ petitioner as a Field Assistant. The appellant/writ

petitioner has not been able to establish that he was ever employed by the

respondents as a Senior Mate for him to claim that he was wrongfully

removed from service and is entitled to reinstatement.

4. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the

present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed as meritless along

with the pending applications, if any, while upholding the impugned

order.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 06.07.2021 Lrkm/pln