AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceeding in RC.No.H.R/08/EGS/DWMA/2022 dated 11.08.2022 suspending the petitioner order as Field Assistant of P.Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, Kakinada District and even not to drop the proceedings inspite of detailed explanation dated 26.08.2022 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as old senior mate/Field Assistant of P.Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, Kakinada District consequently set aside the proceedings in RC.No.H.R/08/EGS/DWIVIA/2022 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and regularize the services of the petitioner and pass such other orders....”
Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case.
Learned counsel for the Government Pleader for Services-IV and Mr. P. Srinivasulu Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent readily agreed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by the respondent authorities within reasonable time.
In view of the submission of learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition.
This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh 2019 (8) SCALE 544, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may be passed for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions but, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.
In the result, Writ Petition is disposed of, while directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, after affording personal hearing of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within four (04) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.