P. Chandra Shekar Reddy, ... vs The Correspondent Secretary, And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4507 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

              WRIT PETITION No.10721 of 2004
ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a

Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the

respondents in continuing the petitioner under

suspension by virtue of proceedings dated 01.02.1999

issued by respondent No.1 without any review and

without paying any subsisting allowance as illegal,

arbitrary, contrary to Rule 53 of the Fundamental

Rules and violative of principles of natural justice and

to consequently direct the respondents to reinstate

him into service with all attendance benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially

appointed as a Physical Education Teacher (PET) on

27.07.1987 in the National High School (Aided), Nagar

Kunrool, Mahabubnagar District, in an unaided post.

Subsequently, he was absorbed in aided post vide

proceedings dated 11.02.1996 issued by respondent

No.2. While in service, a complaint was submitted by

two persons, namely B. Narasimhuluy and P. Venkata

Swamy, against the petitioner, basing on which he was

placed under suspension vide proceedings dated

01.02.1999 without prescribing period, a case in

C.C.No.217 of 2001 was registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 504 read with 506 of

I.P.C on the file of the learned Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Nagarkurnool, and a Sessions Case vide

S.C.No.108 of 1999 was registered for the offences

punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. and Section

3(x)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the file of the learned

Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the

said Act. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted for

the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and

506 of I.P.C. by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nagarkurnool, vide judgment dated

12.08.2002 in C.C.No.217 of 2001. So far as

S.C.No.108 of 1999 is concerned, the same is pending

for trial as on the date of institution of the writ

petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite

several representations, he has not been paid any

subsistence allowance nor he has been reinstated into

service.

3. Respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit

stating that while the petitioner was working as a

Physical Education Teacher in aided post, he was

involved in criminal cases, namely Cr.No.218 of 1998,

Cr.No.18 of 1999 and Cr.No.19 of 1999, and in view of

the criminal charges he was also sent to judicial

remand from 05.05.1999 to 19.05.1999, as informed

by the Correspondent of the National High School,

Nagarkurnool, vide letter dated 11.08.1999. It is also

stated that due to the involvement of the petitioner in

the criminal cases, he was placed under suspension

vide orders in Rc.No.139/99 dated 01.02.1999.

4. When the matter was posted on 05.01.2022, none

appeared for the petitioner and the matter was

adjourned. Today also there is no representation for

the petitioner. Heard the arguments of Smt. C. Vani

Reddy, learned Government Pleader appearing the

respondents.

5. As seen from the record, it is clear that the

petitioner was involved in criminal cases, namely

C.C.No.217 of 2001 and S.C.No.108 of 1999.

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Physical

Education Teacher in unaided post and subsequently

he was absorbed in aided post vide proceedings dated

11.02.1996. Since he was involved in criminal cases,

the Management of the School suspended him after

getting approval from the competent authority.

According to the learned Government Pleader, she has

no instructions whether the criminal cases registered

against the petitioner ended in acquittal or are still

pending as on date.

6. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on

29.06.2004, directed the respondents to pay

subsistence allowance to the petitioner as per Rules.

Further, even as per the counter affidavit filed by the

respondents, basing on the criminal cases registered

against the petitioner the management of the school

being the competent authority has not initiated any

disciplinary enquiry till date. Moreover, the petitioner

has also not chosen to implead the school

management as a party respondent to the writ

proceedings.

7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed

of leaving it open to the petitioner to take recourse to

the remedies available under law after conclusion of

the criminal proceedings.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 08.09.2022 JSU