State Plea Seeking Reinstatement of School Assistant Set Aside
Hyderabad: The service bench of the Telangana High Court on Wednesday dismissed a state writ petition requiring the reinstatement of a school assistant accused of abetting the suicidal death of a 10th class student. The bench, comprising Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, refused to interfere with an order of the service tribunal, which, at the instance of the school assistant, set aside the punishment. Nagurao, a school assistant working at Ashram School of Sirpur mandal in Adilabad district was charged with being the cause for the suicide of a student of his school. It is the case of the school assistant that his removal from service was arbitrary and prejudicial. It was without recording any evidence, oral or documentary. However, the disciplinary authority and the commissioner of tribal welfare as appellate authority confirmed his termination. The erstwhile administrative tribunal directed his reinstatement with full backlog wages. Aggrieved by the same, the said writ petition was filed. The bench found no fault in the order of the tribunal. It reiterated that the inquiry report, the original order of removal, and the order of confirmation and approval were all liable to be set aside. The bench, however, without interfering with the order, gave liberty to the government to proceed with the inquiry within three months.
Alienating land: Single judge’s order modified
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, on Wednesday modified an order of a single judge and required the district registrar’s stance to deal with the case of Prime Properties alienating 84 acres of land in Kukatpally after hearing the realtor company. Earlier, a single judge at the instance of Pilli Balaraju directed the district registrar, Medchal, Malkajgiri district, to examine his representation for the purpose of prosecuting the firm for registering a document contrary to rules. Aggrieved by the said order, Prime Properties filed the present appeal. Senior counsel G. Vidya Sagar pointed out that the order would affect the appellant and was passed without hearing it. He also pointed out that the registration of 84 acres of land in Kukatpally in favour of third parties was based upon the decision of the High Court division bench. The bench accordingly required the district registrar to consider the representation of Pilli Balaraju on hearing the stance of Prime Properties.
Rs 10 lakh fine on Gitanjali Devashray set aside
Justice S. Nanda of the Telangana High Court set aside the punishment imposing a fine of Rs 10 lakh on Gitanjali Devashray. The punishment was imposed on the said school on the twin grounds of conducting a screening process contrary to provisions of the Right to Education Act and upon allegation of collecting capitation fee. A detailed explanation was offered by Geeta Karan, on behalf of the society which runs the school. It was admitted that the screening was inevitable for paucity of space. The collection of capitation fee was categorically denied. Dealing with a cryptic order imposing a fine of Rs 10 lakh, Justice Nanda faulted the authorities. She said “Reason is the soul of justice, reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, recording of reasons is an essential part of principles of natural justice as it ensures transparency and fairness in decision making”. She pointed out that though a detailed explanation was offered in the matter, the impugned order did not consider the same and fell short of the reasons required for judicial scrutiny. She accordingly allowed the writ plea and set aside the order that was made against the school in October 2014.
Former PACS chief’s plea dismissed
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, dismissed a writ appeal filed by a former president of primary agricultural cooperative credit society (PACS), Kodad. Earlier, he unsuccessfully contested his removal on the ground that the removal was contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law. He pointed out that the law required 15 days' clear notice before a motion of no-confidence is moved. It was contended that such notice in his case felt short by three days. The show cause notice issued in December was dispatched on January 4. The official version was that the house was locked on two occasions. Finally, the notice was issued to him on January 13, though the meeting was scheduled for January 25. Therefore, he would contend that the notice based on which he was removed on January 25 fell short of the mandatory 15-day period. The single judge dismissed the writ petition. Both the single judge and the division bench found that there was a clear 15-day gap and that the notice did not suffer illegality.