Bhukya Shankar vs The Telangana State Northern ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 44 Tel

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

          WRIT PETITION No. 2281 of 2020
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"....to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's representation dated 25.09.2017 and not reinstating the petitioner into service, in spite of the acquittal in the Criminal Case in CC No.13 of 2015 dated 03.07.2017 and in spite of the 2nd respondent Memo No.SE/OP/NZB/DE(T) PO/JAO (IR&L)/E3/D.No.3597/17 dated 27.12.2017 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service ......."

::2::

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Zakir Ali Danish, learned Counsel appearing for the

respondents.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

while the petitioner was on duty 12.08.2014 as Sub-Station

Operator at Thumpally Sub-Station, Sririkonda Section,

Armoor, based on the request made by the B.Naveen, JLM

Contract of Pakala over phone, the petitioner gave LC at

18.02 Hours to Pakala Feeder. At 18.16 Hours one

K.Shivaram, JLM (C), Pandimadugu Village fell down on

DTR due to electrocution and died while he was being

shifted to Hospital. Upon which a case in Crime No.120 of

2014 was registered against the petitioner and another for

the offences under Sections 304-A IPC and the same was

registered as CC No.13 of 2015 on the file of Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor. Basing on the

notice issued by the 3rd respondent the Contractor

terminated the services of the petitioner w.e.f 13.08.2014.

::3::

Subsequently, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Armoor acquitted the petitioner and another

vide judgment in CC No.13 of 2015, dated 03.07.2017.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits

that consequent to acquittal in the criminal case the

petitioner made representation to the 2nd respondent on

25.09.2017 to reinstate him into the service enclosing copy

of judgment, but the petitioner was not reinstated into

service and requested the Court to allow the writ petition.

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned

Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of

directing the respondents to consider the representation of

the petitioner submitted to the respondent on 25.09.2017

in view of the judgment passed by the learned Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor in CC No.13 of

2015 dated 03.07.2017, within eight (8) weeks from the

date of receipt of copy of this court.

::4::

6. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall no order as to costs.

_______________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH 04.01.2023 trr