Telangana HC Stays Charge Memo against Ex-govt Employee

The petitioner contended that the charge memo was belated served on him on April 13, 2018 and the same was without jurisdiction, and in violation of A.P./Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which prohibits initiation of departmental proceedings after four years of the alleged misconduct when such proceedings were not instituted while the government servant was in service.

It was further contended that following the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner was allocated to Telangana, resulting in a change in the appointing authority. Counsel for the petitioner would argue that in view of the change in cadre and appointing authority, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Telangana lacked jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings in respect of an event that occurred prior to bifurcation. Counsel placed reliance on various decisions of the High Court to contend that belated disciplinary action causing withholding of pensionary benefits is impermissible in law. After hearing the submissions, the panel observed that the issue of delay and jurisdiction warrants examination. It accordingly granted an interim suspension of the impugned charge memo and directed the State to file their response

Criminal case against MIM MLA quashed

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceeding against member of Legislative Assembly, Mohammed Majid Hussain and another. The judge observed that the allegations in the complaint and the material on record did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Majid Hussain, MLA from AIMIM and Mohammed Naseeruddin. The petitioners were alleged of use of criminal force and criminal intimidation. It was contended by the petitioners that even if the entire complaint, FIR and chargesheet were taken at face value, no offence under Section 353, 506 of IPC or other allied provisions was made out and that the dispute was being given a criminal colour without any factual foundation. The judge observed that criminal intimidation requires a clear act of threatening coupled with intention to cause harm, which was conspicuously absent on plain reading of the complaint. Justice Anil referred to various rulings of the apex court and said continuation of proceedings in the present case would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

No constructions of Bachupally graveyard : HC

Justice B Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court directed the GHMC not to permit any construction activities until further orders qua proposed graveyard near a residential locality at Bachupally. The judge is dealing with a writ plea filed by Sikhara Residential Welfare Association, questioning the action of the authorities in making and continuing the construction of the graveyard in the vicinity of Baruni Cherukuri alias Peddacheruvu and behind Sikhara Gated Community, Bachupally, Hyderabad. It was contended by the petitioner association that the respondents were proceeding with the construction in balant violation of the provisions of the GHMC Act and contrary to the principles laid down by the High Court in earlier judgements. The petitioner would allege that the construction activity was being carried out in an arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner further pointed out that the impugned action was also in disregard of interim orders passed by the High Court in earlier writ petition. It was argued that the continuation of the graveyard would cause irreparable hardship to residents of the gated community. The judge admitted the writ petition and passed an interim direction restraining the authorities from permitting any construction activity until further orders.

Justice K. Tirumala Devi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a student, accused of house trespass and causing grevious hurt, after finding that the accused was wrongly implicated due to a mistake of identity. The Judge was dealing with a plea filed by Marati Sudhakar Rao. The case arose from a night-time incident in which a quarrel allegedly broke out between other accused persons and the victim. The petitioner contended that he was not present at the time of incident and had been falsely implicated in the case. The said contended was supported by a sworn affidavit filed by the de facto complainant, unequivocally stating that the petitioner had no involvement in the incident and had been mistakenly implicated. Taking note of the affidavit and the material on record, the Court observed that the prosecution of the petitioner was unsustainable and amounted to a clear abuse of the process of law. The judge strongly criticised the prosecution for subjecting the petitioner to an unnecessary criminal trial. The Judge not only quashed the criminal case but also recorded that, in light of the sworn statement of the complainant, no further proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner in connection with the same incident.