The State of A.P & Ors. v. Sri V. Satyanarayana Murthy
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 s. 7
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Sri V. Satyanarayana Murthy ……..RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9943 of 2007 ORDER: (per Smt. T.Meena Kumari,J) The petitioner-Department filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to and connected with the orders dated 20.9.2006 and 10.10.2006 in O.A. No. 5975 of 2006 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside them by holding it as erroneous and contrary to law. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein was working as a Town Planning Supervisor in Tanuku Municipality. While so, a case was registered under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the A.C.B. against him in Crime No. 7/ACB-RCT/EWG/99. Subsequently, through proceedings dated 12.7.1999, the respondent was placed under suspension and subsequently, he retired from service on
30.6.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. Finally, the case ended in acquittal on 2.2.2005. However, the Government through G.O. Ms.No.391, dated 26.7.2006 issued orders according sanction conducting enquiry against the respondent under Rule 9(2) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 in respect of the charges pertaining to the year 1999-2000. Assailing the same, the respondent filed O.A. No. 5975 of 2006 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, while admitting the O.A., on 20.9.2006, granted interim order and the same was made absolute on 10.10.2006 until further orders. Aggrieved by the same, the Department filed the present writ petition. Admittedly, the Tribunal through the impugned order, only passed interim order and it did not pass any final order in the O.A. In the circumstances, we do not find any valid ground to entertain this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner-Department to agitate all the contentions which were urged in this writ petition before the Tribunal in accordance with law. No costs. DATE: 7th June, 2007 ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J __________________ G. CHANDRAIAH,J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 7; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 07 Jun 2007. The bench was T MEENA KUMARI, G CHANDRAIAH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.