Telangana High Court
Boddula Rajender Rao Khammam District vs The Chairman And M.D., Somajiguda And 2 ... on 4 April, 2025
Author: P. Sree Sudha
Bench: P. Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
WRIT PETITION No.10114 OF 2004
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed against the impugned Memo No.
GM(A)/DS(E)/AS.(Vig)/1898/Vc2/2002 dated 17.03.2004,
issued by respondent No.1, confirming the dismissal order
passed by respondent No.2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was appointed as a watchman and was removed from
service on the ground that he was impersonated as B.Rajender
Rao, S/o. late Rajaiah, and filed false legal heir certificate.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the present
writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
the petitioner herein submitted the explanation in the memo,
dated 17.03.2004, stating that the Chief Engineer/O&M/KTPS
has grossly erred in not taking into consideration of legal heir
certificate, dated 30.11.1993 issued by the MRO/Paloncha and
also educational certificates of the petitioner. But the Chief
Engineer/O&M/KTPS has relied upon the false complaint made
by Sri V.Srinivas, who is not at all concerned with the
Department and is in the habit of making frivolous complaints
against the employees of the KTPS, with an intention to extract
money by adopting black mailing tatics and considering the said
complaint, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner
also filed C.C.No.285 of 2012 against one K.Sudhakar, it was
also ended in acquittal, vide judgment, dated 26.09.2018. He
also filed O.S.No.89 of 1995 for declaration, declaring his status
and Court perused the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
the petitioner is not K.Sudhakar S/o.K.Madhava Rao, as alleged
in the dismissal order, he is B.Rajender Rao, S/o. late Rajaiah.
He has also filed identity card, dated 27.04.2003 issued by the
Election Commission of India, but the same was not considered
by the Chief Engineer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that the petitioner has also produced memorandum of
marks issued by the Board of Secondary Education, wherein his
name was shown as B.Rajender Rao, S/o.B.Rajaiah. The
Petitioner has also filed a suit before the Principal District
Munsif, Kothagudem, for declaration of his status and to declare
him as natural son of late Sri Rajaiah S/o.Venkaiah.
Accordingly, the said suit was allowed in his favour vide
judgment and decree, dated 03.05.1995 and he was declared as
a natural son of Sri B.Rajaiah. It became final as no appeal was
preferred against the said judgment. In the said judgment,
defendants were made as exparte. The petitioner also filed
W.P.No.448 of 2004, questioning the order, dated 15.09.2003
passed by the Chief Engineer, in which the appellate authority
was directed to dispose of the matter within a period of two (02)
months. But the appellate authority simply observed that they
are not inclined to interfere with the final orders of the Chief
Engineer and rejected the appeal. They have not considered the
explanation given by the petitioner herein and also not verified
the documents filed by the petitioner. When the petitioner stated
that false complaint was given by V.Srinivas, who is in the habit
of giving false complaint against the employees to extract money,
it was not even ensured in their enquiry, moreover, the
allegations are against K.Sudhakar S/o.Madhav Rao, but not
against the petitioner herein. The petitioner has also approached
the civil Court for declaring his status as natural son of Rajaiah
and the decree was passed in his favour. Even then, the
appellate authority without considering any of the documents
and without assigning any reasons, simply confirmed the order
of the Chief Engineer and the order passed by the appellate
authority is prejudicial and it was not supported by any reasons.
Therefore, this Court finds that the order, dated 17.03.2004
passed by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside and is
accordingly set aside.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent
authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service
within a period of one month (01) from the date of receipt of copy
of this order. The petitioner is entitled for continuity of service,
back wages and all other attendant benefits. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
Date: 04.04.2025
pss
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
WRIT PETITION No.10114 OF 2004
DATE: 04.04.2025
pss
