J. Ganesh, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

* I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V.RAMASUBRAMANI AN * HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO + W.P.NO.43344 of 2017 % Date: 21-12-2017 # Betw een:

J. Ganesh S/o. Appa Rao, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Presently on OD with Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, (VUDA), Visakhapatnam, R/o. H.No.11-9-1/3, Dassapalla Hills, Visakhapatnam-3.

..... Petitioner And

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For.IV) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, A.P. 522 603.

2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Agathavarappadu, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh 522 569.

3. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District 530 001. .... Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. P. Venugopal Sr. Counsel Mr. M. Srikanth ^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr. P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad < GI ST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.43344 of 2017 ORDER: (Per VRS,J) Challenging the refusal of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal to grant stay of an order that would have the effect of dismissal of the petitioner from service, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner was convicted by the criminal Court for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is on appeal before this Court. Despite this fact, the Government took a decision to continue him in service. But later the Government decided to withdraw their original decision, forcing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal under threat of dismissal from service. Even while admitting the Original Application, the Tribunal refused to grant an interim stay. Therefore, the petitioner is before us.

4. The order impugned in the Original Application before the Tribunal has the effect of dismissing the petitioner from service. Therefore, naturally there cannot be a stay of an order of dismissal. However good the case of the petitioner may be, the other parameters, such as balance of convenience and irreparable hardship, will play a great role in determining the question of grant of interim orders.

5. If stay of an order of dismissal is granted and eventually the Original Application is dismissed, the salary paid to the employee cannot be recovered since he would have worked and earned the salary. But if no interim order is granted and if Original Application is allowed, he can

always be paid the retiral benefits. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in not granting an interim order. We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. However, the Tribunal may make an endeavour, within the possible limits, to dispose of the Original Application as expeditiously as possible.

6. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN, J.

_______________ M. GANGA RAO, J.

21st December, 2017 Js.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. GANGA RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.43344 of 2017 21st December, 2017 Js.