S.Balaraju, S/O.S.Govindu v. The Government Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

Present

Between:

S. Balaraju, S/o. S. Govindu, Aged about 53 years, Occ: RPF HC No.892, Hyderabad Division, Secunderabad, R/o. H.No.7-9184, Tarakaramnagar Colony, Dhone (V) & (M), Kurnool District.

.. Petitioner AND The Government of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi - 110 001 & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioner is assailing the order, dated 17.12.2015, dismissing him from service. Against the said order, an appeal shall lie to the Additional Central Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Secunderabad (2nd respondent). Without exhausting the said remedy of appeal, this writ petition is filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations directly relate to criminal case pending against him and, therefore, the disciplinary action ought not to have been taken up till the disposal of criminal case. Punishment ought not to have been imposed on a charge which directly relates to criminal proceedings and, therefore, though he has remedy of appeal, as order impugned is vitiated by error of jurisdiction by the disciplinary authority, he need not avail the remedy of appeal.

3. On a reading of the order of disciplinary authority, prima facie, it cannot be said that the disciplinary action is falling within the four corners of the issue in the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he need not avail the remedy of appeal is not valid. Even otherwise, it is open to

petitioner to raise the contention before the appellate authority. In view of availability of effective and efficacious remedy of appeal, the writ petition is not maintainable.

3. Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if an appeal is preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Central Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Secunderabad (2nd respondent), the same shall be considered objectively and appropriate orders be passed by the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the appeal. It is also made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits and all rights of petitioner are preserved. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _____________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 18th January, 2016 KL

Date: 18th January, 2016 KL