Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD358; 2004(2)ALT128
ORDERC.V. Ramulu, J. 1. In all these writ petitions, a common question of law arises for consideration since the services of all the petitioners are sought to be terminated by invoking inter alia the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994), which has come into force with effect from 25-11-1993.2. According to the petitioners, Act 2 of 1994 has no application to the societies constituted and registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'APCS Act'). Thus, the only question that arises for consideration of this Court is :Whether Act 2 of 1994 is applicable to the Co-operative institutions registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 or not ?3. The petitioners, in all these cases, have been working in various capacities in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies/Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT666
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. These two writ petitions give rise to the far-reaching question, whether the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary verification into matters touching the All India Service officers. By virtue of Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta & Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act 11/83'), the Institution of Lokayukta is established in the State with the prime object of meeting the of expressed public outcry against the prevalence of corruption, the existence of wide spread inefficiency and the unresponsiveness of the administration to the popular needs and to provide a machinery in order to examine public complaints and shift the genuine from the false or the untenable so that the administrative failures and achievements could be publicly viewed in their correct perspective.2. It is not disputed that the term 'preliminary verification' as used in the Act 11/83 is similar to the expression 'investigation' in the code of Criminal Procedure and the term 'investigation' i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J.ORDER:1. This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2008 on the file of Yemmiganur Town Police Station, Kurnool District/the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, insofar as the petitioners-A1 to A3 (for short A1 to A3) are concerned. The case is registered for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C.2. Whereas the petitioners are A1 to A3, the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant in the criminal case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the criminal case.3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:The defacto complainant purchased an extent of Ac.2.67 cents of land in Sy.No.388-B from one Ch.Veeraswamy under a registered sale deed No.1195 dated 13.06.1978 and thus acquired absolute rights over the said property. Dhanunjaya (A-2) and his brothers are interfering with his right...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD1; 2003(1)ALT636
Motilal B. Naik, J.1. The issues involved in these two Writ Petitions are inter-related and are heard and disposed off together by the following common order.2. Writ Petition No. 239 of 2000 is filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endts.I) Department, Hyderabad, (2) Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Tilak Road, Hyderabad and (3) The Assistant Commissioner, Sri Bramarambika Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam, Kurnool District assailing the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 7137 of 1999 dated 27-12-1999. Whereas Writ Petition No. 602 of 2000 is filed by Sri G. Kesavulu, Executive Officer (under transfer), Srisailam Devasthanam questioning the competency of the Upa-Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, sole respondent in the said Writ Petition, in issuing the interim order on 15-11-1999 and final order on 15-12-1999 in complaint No. 792/99/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP83; 1968CriLJ294
Jaganmohan Reddy, C.J. 1. This Full Bench has been formed to consider the Constitutional validity of Sections 5(2) and 13 of the Madras Revenue Malversation Regulation (Madras Regulation DC of 1822) (hereinafter called 'the Regulation') as offending Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 21 and 22 of the Constitution A Bench of the Madras High Court, consisting of Rama-krishnan and Sadasivani, JJ., had, in Srinivasa Iyer v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli, 1966-1 Mad L) 459, held the aforesaid provisions as offending Article 14 of the Constitution and had struck them down. The correctness of that decision having been challenged by the learned Government Pleader before two of us (namely Basi Reddy and Anantanarayana Ayyar, JJ.) these three petitions have been directed to be posted before a Full Bench, as the issues insolved are of great public importance.2. In Crl. M. P. No. 1740/1965, the petitioner is a village munsif of Biradavada group of villages in Nellore District. The Revenue Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(1)ALT504
ORDERP.S. Mishra, C.J.1. Writ Appeals 1272 and 1273 of 1996 were posted for admission and with the agreement of the parties they have been taken up for final hearing along with the batch of Writ Petitions, which have been filed questioning the vires of some of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1995 (Act No. 24 of 1995). The Act was preceded by Ordinance called Andhra Pradesh Transplantation of Human Organs Ordinance, 1995. Since the Act has come into force, any reference to the constitutional vires of the provisions of the Ordinance is no longer necessary.2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have alleged that the Act has such provisions which violate Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India and they, for the said reason, are ultra vires to the Constitution of India.3. Before we take up a brief prospecting into the provisions of the Act for appreciation of the objects of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD823; 2006(1)ALT661; (2006)IILLJ448AP; 2007(1)SLJ459(NULL)
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.I had the advantage of going through the judgments rendered by both my learned brothers. Both of them arrived at the same conclusion, but for slightly different reasons.I agree with the conclusion reached.P.S. Narayana, J.1. I prefer to add a couple of sentences of my own while agreeing with the conclusion of my learned brother. The importance of a disciplinary enquiry or departmental enquiry in Service Jurisprudence need not be overemphasized. In view of the importance of the question involved in the present matter, the Division Bench thought it fit to refer the matter thus inviting a decision on the said point. The learned Counsel on record made elaborate submissions in relation to the language employed in Rule 19 of the A. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, and Rule 20 of the amended Rules of 1991. Certain submissions were made even in relation to the meaning of 'cause to be drawn' and also incidentally Rule 21 of the 1991 Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(2)ALD585; 2006(2)ALT289; [2006(110)FLR282]; (2006)IIILLJ570AP
T. Meena Kumari, J. (for A. Gopal Reddy, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J. and herself)1. A Division Bench of this Court presided by the then Chief Justice Hon'ble Sri Devinder Gupta by its order dated 15-12-2004 felt proviso (b) to Rule 45(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'the 1991 Rules') appears to have not been taken note of by the Full Bench in V. Venkata Bharani v. High Court of A.P. 2001 (6) ALT 225 which in its turn had approved the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in V. Rajamallaiah v. High Court of A.P. : 2001(3)ALD625 and thus referred the matter to the Full Bench to consider the question as to the legality and validity of disciplinary proceedings continued against the petitioner under A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1963 (for short 'the 1963 Rules') after 1991 Rules were adopted by the High Court. On placing the matter before the Full Bench, it held that the department...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP497
Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order passed by the Government dated 26-6-1958 in G. O. Ms. No. 1584 dismissing him from service on a charge of corruption and irregularities in court work. For a proper appreciation o the contentions raised the facts relating to suspension and dismissal of the petitioner and the writ petition and appeal to' the Supreme Court filed by him prior to this petition may be enumerated.2. The petitioner was recruited to the Madras Judicial Service as a District Munsif in 1935 and in 1949 he was promoted to the office of the Subordinate Judge and pasted at Masulipatam on 19-6-1950. The charge of bribery levelled against him was with respect to two connected suits tried by him, O. S. No. 95 of 1946 and O. S. No. 24 of 1949. On 27-7-1950, the trial having concluded, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. On 10-8-1950, petitions were filed to re-hear the cases, which were allowed and, after hearing the parties, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(3)ALD887
P.S. Narayana, J. 1. The writ petition is filed by the unsuccessful applicant as against an order made in O.A. No. 8965/ 98 dated 4-12-2003 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal in short referred to as 'Tribunal' hereinafter wherein the proceedings issued in G.O. Rt. No. 1044, T.R. and B(Ser. T.3) Department, dated 28-11-1998 had been assailed.2. Sri Venkata Sastry, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, in detail had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal, the impugned order and had pointed out that the whole enquiry is vitiated for the reason that the same had not been conducted in accordance with the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, in short referred to as 'present Rules' hereinafter and had been conducted in accordance with the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'old Rules' and hence the Counsel would maintain that the...
Tag this Judgment!