High Court for State of TelanganaWP/21289/2015disposed of no costs

R. Rama Krishna, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

2015-07-10C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy3 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21289 of 2015 DATE: 10.07.2015 Between:

R.Rama Krishna

...Petitioners

and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others

...Respondents

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SRI P.V.V.SATYANARAYANA COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.1 : AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.2 : SRI M.S.R.CHANDRA MURTHY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3 : SRI CHEEMALAPATI RAVI THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21289 of 2015

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings in Rc.No.203/2010/F-Section, dated 21.07.2014 of respondent No.2 whereby he has suspended the petitioner as Field Assistant of Maddirala Gram Panchayat, Chilakaluripeta Mandal, Guntur District.

A perusal of the record shows that on 20.12.2014 respondent No.2 has addressed a letter to respondent No.3 wherein he has stated that in the Grama Sabha held on 22.10.2014 by Additional Program Officer, Chilakaluripet, a view was expressed that there was nothing wrong in the Field Assistant getting rural employment works done during non-agricultural season, that the petitioner is of hard working nature and that the villagers have no objection for continuance of the petitioner. In view of the same, respondent No.2 has directed respondent No.3 to hold an enquiry and submit a report within one week.

At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though more than six months had elapsed after the abovementioned letter was addressed to respondent No.3, he has not completed the enquiry and submitted a report to respondent No.2. Inasmuch as one year has elapsed from the date of suspension of the petitioner, it is not appropriate to interfere with such suspension at this length of time. However, I do not find any justification for respondent No.2 to keep the enquiry pending even after he has addressed letter, dated 20.12.2014 to respondent No.3. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to ensure that enquiry is completed and an appropriate order is passed and communicated to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

As a sequel to disposal of writ petition, WPMP.No.27425 of 2015 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th JULY, 2015.

kvni