Service matter - keep pending with out conducting disciplinary proceedings expeditiously even after receiving explanation = The petitioner challenges the order of keeping him out of employment and not completing the disciplinary proceedings in this writ petition. = on due consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If for any reason the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded and the reasons are not attributable to the petitioner within next four weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall be reinducted into service pending disciplinary proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs.


WP 263 / 2016
WPSR 581 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
G. RAMU, NALGONDA DIST  VSPRL SECY, RURAL DEVP., HYD & 4 O

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.263 of 2016
DATED : 06.01.2016
Between:
G. Ramu S/o.Mysaiah, R/o.Kodandaramapuram Village, Monagala Mandal, Nalgonda District. .. Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others. .. Respondents
The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.263 of 2016 ORDER:
Alleging irregularities against the petitioner who is working as Fixed Tenure Employee, proceedings dated 03.02.2015 were issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation and he was also placed under suspension. The petitioner filed his explanation on 16.02.2015 but thereafter, there is no progress. The petitioner challenges the order of keeping him out of employment and not completing the disciplinary proceedings in this writ petition. 
2. Having regard to the nature of allegations made and since already charge memo was issued and explanation is called for, I am not inclined to interfere with the order at this stage. However, it is suffice that if the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the Project Director, Water Management Agency, Nalgonda and Joint Secretary of Society for Rural Development Services, Nalgonda (4 th respondent) to pass orders, on due consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If for any reason the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded and the reasons are not attributable to the petitioner within next four weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall be reinducted into service pending disciplinary proceedings. 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: 06 th January, 2016 Rds

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.