The Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs B.Ramulu,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6569 Tel

  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                      AND
  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                           W.P.No. 37194 of 2013

ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


        This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders of the

A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity 'the

Tribunal') passed in O.A.No.6593 of 2010 dt.12-08-2013.


        2.      Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I

appearing for the petitioners and Sri N.Sameera Asad, learned

counsel for the 1st respondent.

3. It has been contended by the petitioners that the 1st

respondent was appointed as an attender on 04-07-1996 and

posted him at Veterinary Dispensary, Renjal and the 1st

respondent was involved in a criminal case in C.C.Nos.8 and 9 of

1998. However, he was acquitted of the said criminal charge by

the competent Criminal Court vide judgment dt.10-09-1998. But

the petitioners have terminated the services of the 1st respondent

vide proceedings dt.30-04-1999 on the ground that the 1st

respondent was involved in a criminal case. Aggrieved by the AKS,J & RRN,J

said orders of termination, the 1st respondent has approached the

Tribunal by filing O.A.No.6593 of 2010 and the Tribunal vide

orders dt.12-08-2013 was pleased to allow the O.A. and was

pleased to set aside the orders of termination without appreciating

any of the contentions raised by the petitioners and the Tribunal

was also directed the petitioners to pay back-wages and other

consequential benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended

that the 1st respondent has challenged the termination orders

dt.30-04-1999 in 2010 and therefore the Tribunal was not justified

in directing the petitioners to pay back-wages also. In fact, the

Tribunal ought to have dismissed the O.A. on the ground of delay

and latches but the Tribunal has not only set aside the orders of

termination but also granted back-wages and consequential

benefits. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ

Petition by setting aside the orders of Tribunal in O.A.No.6593 of

2010 dt.12-08-2013 and allow the Writ Petition.

5. This Court having considered the submissions made

by the learned counsel for both the parties is of the considered AKS,J & RRN,J

view that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the

termination orders on the ground that no regular departmental

enquiry was conducted and no procedure was followed before

terminating the services of the 1st respondent. However, the

Tribunal could not have granted back-wages to the 1st respondent

as admittedly the 1st respondent has challenged the orders of

termination dt.13-04-1999, only in the year 2010 by filing

O.A.No.6593 of 2010. Therefore, the orders of the Tribunal to

the extent that the petitioners were directed to pay back-wages is

set aside and the rest of the orders of the Tribunal shall remain

unchanged.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. No

costs.

7. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

_________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Dt.07.12.2022 kvr