Writ Petition Nos. 15558 of 2005 and 21958 of 2016. Case: Union of India and Ors. Vs Hemanth Kumar Singh. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition Nos. 15558 of 2005 and 21958 of 2016 |
| Judges | V. Ramasubramanian and M.S.K. Jaiswal, JJ. |
| Issue | Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475 |
| Judgement Date | December 07, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
-
Both these writ petitions arise out of two different orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, at various points of time. While the first of writ petitions is by the Union of India challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 08-12-2004, the 2nd writ petition is by the employee challenging another order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 140 of 2011.
-
Heard Mr. B.Narayana Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and the party appearing in person.
-
The petitioner in the 2nd writ petition was employed as a Lower Selection Grade Postal Assistant in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. On 12-02-1999, a criminal complaint in Crime No. 50 of 1999 was registered on the file of Musheerabad Police Station, as against unnamed accused, for alleged offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Subsequently, the Inspector of Police informed the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices by a communication dated 13-3-1999 that the petitioner in the 2nd writ petition herein was arrested in connection with Crime No. 50 of 1999 and was detained in custody for more than 48 hours.
-
On the basis of the said information, the employee was placed under suspension with effect from 12-3-1999. The suspension continued up to 09-5-2001, and it was later revoked.
-
After the revocation of the order of suspension, the employee went before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1519 of 2000 and secured even an order for the grant of promotion. Accordingly, he was promoted by an order dated 02-3-2003 and he retired on reaching superannuation on 29-02-2004.
-
After reaching superannuation, the employee filed O.A. No. 242 of 2004 challenging an order dated 03-7-2003 by which his request for payment of all benefits during the period of suspension was rejected. The said application O.A. No. 242 of 2004 was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that neither any disciplinary proceedings nor any criminal proceedings were pending as against the employee as on the date of his retirement. Aggrieved by the said order, the Union of India has come up with W.P. No. 15558 of 2005.
-
During the pendency of the above writ petition, the employee approached the Tribunal once again and filed O.A. No. 140 of 2011 seeking the reliefs of all terminal benefits such as gratuity, commutation of pension and earned leave. This application was dismissed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial