Late by 7 Years, HC Stays Charge Memo on Pensioner

Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court stayed a charge memo against a retired government employee issued nearly seven years after the alleged incident. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ plea filed by G. Chennakesava Rao, who challenged the charge memo issued on February 26, 2018, by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Telangana, pertaining to an incident that allegedly occurred in 2011. The petitioner contended that the charge memo was only served on him on April 13, 2018 and the same was without jurisdiction, and in violation of AP/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 contended that following the bifurcation of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner was allocated to Telangana, resulting in a change in the appointing authority. Counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the change in cadre and appointing authority, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction

Case against MIM MLA quashed

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti quashed criminal proceeding against AIMIM legislator Mohammed Majid Hussain and Mohammed Naseeruddin. 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 petitioners were accused of use of criminal force and criminal intimidation. It was contended by the petitioners that even if the complaint, FIR and chargesheet were taken at face value, no offence under Sections 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 required a clear act of threatening coupled with intention to cause harm, which was conspicuously absent on plain reading of the complaint.

HC bars building work at graveyard

Justice B Vijaysen Reddy 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. It was contended that the respondents were proceeding with the construction in violation of the provisions of the GHMC Act and contrary to the principles laid down by the High Court. The petitioner alleged that the construction activity was being carried out in an arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner 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.

Criminal case on student quashed

Justice K. Tirumala Devi 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 proceedings could be initiated.