High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Memo No. GM(AyDS(E/AS./(Vig)/1898/VC2l2oo2, dated 17.3.2oo4 issued bv the 1st respondent in rejecting the appeal dt. 23.9.2003 filed by the petitioner confirming the order of ' dismissal dt. 15.9.2003 in Memo No. CE/O&MyKTPS/ADE/ADM/D.NO.65i03, dt. 15.9.2003 passed by the 2nd respondent' is ast arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and without any justifiable reasons and in violation of Artlcle 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and also in violation of principles of natural justice. consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with backwages and continuity of service by setting aside the impugned Memo dt. 17.3.2004 issued by the 1st respondent. ----- / l.A. NO: 1 OF 2004(WP l\4P. NO: 12846 OF 20041 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned Memo No. cM(AyDS(EyAS./(Vig)/1B9BlVC2l2O02, dated 17.3.2004 issued by the 1st respondent in rejecting .the appeal filed by the petitioner in confirming the order of dismissal dt. 15.9.2003 in Memo No. cE/o&MyKTPS/ADE/ADM/D. NO.65/03, dt.'l 5.9.2003. lA NO: 't OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file ('1 ) Judgment passed by the Hon'ble ll Addl Judge Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem in C.C No 285 of 2022 daled 261O912018 (2) deposition given by the 2nd respondent in C.C No 285 of 2O12 as additional documents. ' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI I.V.RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. V.UMA DEVI, SC FOR TSEB The Court made the folk>wing: ORDER :i t. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICD P. SREE SUDHA. WRIT PETITION No. 1O11 4 0F 2o,o,4 I ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed against the impugned Memo No. GM(A)/DS(E)/eS.(Vig)/t8e9/Yc2/2oo2 dated tZ.o3.2oo4, issued by respondent No.1, confirming the dismissal order passed by respondent No.2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a watchman and was removed from service on the ground that he was impersonated as B.Rajender Rao, S/o. late Rajaiah, and filed false legal heir certificate. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner herein submitted the explanation in the memo, dated 17.03.2OO4, stating that the Chief Engineer/O&M/KTpS has grossly erred in not taking into consideration of legal heir certilicate, dated 30.11.1993 issued by the MRO/paloncha and also educational certificates of the petitioner. But the Chief L I Engineer/O&M/KTPS has relied upon the false complaint made by Sri V.Srinivas, who is not at all concerned with the Department and is in the habit of making frivolous complaints against the employees of the KTPS, with-dn intention to extract money by adopting black mailing tatics and considering the said complaint, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner also filed C.C.No.285 of 2OI2 against one K.Sudhakar, it was also ended in acquittal, uide judgrnent, dated 26.09.2018. He also filed O.S.No.B9 of 1995 for declaration, declaring his status and Court pertrsed the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is not K.Sudhakar S/o.K.Madhava Rao, as alleged in the dismissirl order, he is B.Rajender Rao, S/o. late Rajaiah. He has also filed identity card, dated.27.O4.2OO3 issued by the Election Commission of India, but the s€une uras not considered by the Chief Engineer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has also produced memorandum of marks issued by the Board of Secondary Education, wherein his narne was shown as B.Rajender Rao, S/o.B.Rajaiah. The Petitioner has also filed a suit before the principal District Munsif, Kothagudem, for declaration of his status and to decrare a him as natural son of late Sri Rajaiah S/o.Venkaiah. Accordingly, the said suit was allowed in his favour uide judgment and decree, dated 03.05.1995 and he was declared as a natural son of Sri B.Rajaiah. It became final as no appeal was preferred against the said judgment. In the said judgment, defendants were made as exparte. The petitioner alsg, filed W.P.No.448 of 2OO4, questioning the order, dated 15.Q9-20O3 passed by the Chief Engineer, in which the appellate authority was directed to dispose of the matter within a period of two (02) months. But the appellate authority simply observed that they are not inclined to interfere with the final orders of the Chief Engineer and rejected the appeal. They have not considered the explanation given by the petitioner herein and also not verified the documents filed by the petitioner. When the petitioner stated that false complaint was given by V. Srinivas, who is in the habit of giving false complaint against the employees to extract money, it was not even ensured in their enquiry, moreover, the allegations are against K.Sudhakar S/o.Madhav Rao, blit not against the petitioner herein. The petitioner has also approached the civil Court for declaring his status as natural son of Rajaiah and the decree was passed in his favour. Even then, the appellate authority without considering any of the documents I I , and without assigning any reasons, simply conf,rrmed the order r of the Chief Engineer ald the order passed by the appellate authority is prejudicial and it was not supported by any reasons. Therefore, this Court finds that the order, dated 17.03.20O4 passed by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set astde.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service within,a period of one month (O 1) from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 'l'he petitioner is entitled for continuity of service, back wages and all other attendalt benelits. No costs. Miscellaleous applications, pending if any, shall stald closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL' on this ;iiffii iiE iounrn DAY oF APRIL rwo rHousAND AND rll/ENw FlvE //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ To 1 2 2 4 5 o PSK. GJP r The Chairman and [Vanaging Director, Telangana P Corporation Li mited, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, HYdera The Chief Eng ineer, (O&M) KTPS, Palvoncha, Khammam The Superintend One CC to SRI I One CC to SIMT. Two CD CoPies ing Eng ineer CHP, KTPS, Palvoncha, Kha mnram District V.RADH AKRISHN A MURTHY, Advocate [OPUC] V UIUA DEVI, SC FOR TSEB IOPUC] Generation bad. District. ,a? HIGH COURT DATED:0 410412025 ORDER WP.No.10114 ot 2004 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 19,'", ( ,( 1t J E Er4 rr-: 1H I2 APB (r.,(.' /rr-,,..-rr(6 t (( c. j. @\4'0 \J rr(].a -/ .lv\ |