S.Narsinga Rao vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 872 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                         AND
       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

                      WRIT APPEAL No.98 of 2021

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated

05.10.2020

passed in W.P.No.16649 of 2020 by the learned

Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/

petitioner before this Court, who was serving on the post of

constable, was unauthorisedly absent from duties for a

period of 401 days, i.e., from 08.05.2004 to 12.06.2005.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him keeping

in view the statutory provisions as contained in the Andhra

Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1991. Based upon the enquiry report, an order of

punishment of removal was passed on 27.12.2006 and the

appellant/petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of

removal, which was rejected on 12.04.2007. Thereafter, the

appellant/petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the

Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Region,

Hyderabad/Revisional Authority and the Revisional

Authority passed order dated 14.08.2007, taking a lenient

view in the matter, modifying the punishment to that of

'compulsory retirement' in the place of 'removal from service'.

The appellant/petitioner being aggrieved by the said order,

dated 14.08.2007, has approached the Andhra Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing Original

Application, i.e., O.A.No.5850 of 2009 and the same was

dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.04.2011. The

appellant, thereafter, preferred a Review Petition on

27.12.2011 before the State Government and the same was

rejected on 31.08.2012. The appellant/petitioner, in spite of

the fact that the Revision Petition, the Review Petition and

also the Original Application are dismissed, kept on

submitting representations and finally approached this

Court in the year 2020 by filing a writ petition, i.e.,

W.P.No.16649 of 2020. The learned Single Judge has

dismissed the writ petition holding that a second review is

not maintainable before the State Government.

This Court has carefully gone through the order passed

in O.A.No.5850 of 2009, dated 22.04.2011 and also the order

passed in W.P.No.16649 of 2020, dated 05.10.2020.

The appellant/petitioner has not been able to point out

violation of any statutory provision of law in the matter of

disciplinary proceedings nor violation of principles of natural

justice and fair play and therefore, the order of the Tribunal

does not warrant any interference. The appellant/petitioner

after dismissal of O.A.No.5850 of 2009, dated 22.04.2011,

has preferred a Review Petition on 27.12.2011 and the same

was dismissed by the State Government in the year 2012

itself. A second review is certainly not at all maintainable

and the appellant/petitioner, after dismissal of O.A.No.5850

of 2009 by the Tribunal, on 22.04.2011, has slept over the

matter and in the year 2020 has again preferred a writ

petition before this Court. Learned Single Judge was also

justified in dismissing the writ petition on merits.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ

petition was certainly devoid of any merits and it was a

hopelessly barred writ petition as the order passed by the

Tribunal dated 22.04.2011 was challenged in the year 2020

before this Court. This Court also does not find any reason to

interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal as well as by

the learned Single Judge.

Resultantly, the writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

dismissed.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 23.02.2022 pln