Telangana High Court
M.Krishna Mohan vs The State Of Telangana on 26 October, 2021
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.24729 of 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage
with the consent of both parties.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"..... to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly
one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
the 1st Respondent in continuing to place the Petitioner under
suspension vide proceedings No.A4/DCSA/0020/2018 dated
07/05/2018 beyond period of two years without review as being
illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Rule 8 (5) (b) of Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 besides being
contrary to G.O.Ms.No.526 General Administration (Service-C)
Department dated 19/08/2008 and G.O.Rt.No.2285 General
Administration (Service-C) Department dated 18/05/2012 and
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs.
Union of India reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291 as also in violation of
Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently
direct the Respondents to consider reinstating the Petitioner into
service with all consequential benefits after setting aside the
proceedings dt 07/05/2018 ......".
3. Heard Sri Mamidi Avinash Reddy, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing
for the respondents.
4. It has been contended by the petitioner that he is working as
a Deputy Tahsildar and the disciplinary authority has placed him
under suspension vide proceedings dated 07.05.2018 on the
alleged ground that he was involved in an ACB trap case.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that except placing him
under suspension, the disciplinary authority has not initiated any
disciplinary proceedings nor reviewed the suspension order strictly in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.526 dated
19.08.2008 though more than three years have elpased.
6. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had
contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition
directing the respondents to review the suspension order of the
petitioner strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994 and
G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 19.08.2008 and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
had contended that the respondents would review the suspension
order of the petitioner strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated
08.03.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 19.08.2008 and appropriate
orders would be passed in accordance with law.
8. This Court, having considered the rival submissions of learned
counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that this writ
petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to review the
suspension order of the petitioner strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86
dated 08.03.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 19.08.2008 and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a reasonable
period, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
26.10.2021
Prv
