The High Court · 2025

Petition under pnticre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order decraring the action of Respondents in continuing the petitioner under suspension beyond the prescribed period of two years with effect from 02.os.2023 vide Memo No.DEE/op/HBG/JAo/ADM/ F. /D.No.811/23 dt-4-5-2023, as iflegar, arbitrary, unjust, viorative of the principres of natural justice and contrary to G_O. Ms. No.g6, GAD dt.8.03.i 994, besides being violative of Articres 14 and 16, 19(i xg), 21 of the constitution of rndia, consequently direct the 1't respondent to rernstate him into service in the interest of justice. r"!ar5 E*I.EF .*- '-v ---------- ?'-// '.-)t, - ./ :/ l lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the '1't respondent to consider petitioner representation dt. 04 06 2025 for reinstatement into service, in the interesl of justice as otherw se petitioner stands to suffer serious hardship and irreparable loss and iniury. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. MANOHAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES - ll Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, S.C. FOR TSSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO ..,1 WRIT PETITION No.21584 of 2O2S OR.DER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...to issue an appropiate Wit, Order or Direction, more partianlarlg one in the nature of a Wit of Mandamus declaring the action of tLrc respondents in continuing tlrc petitioner under suspension begond the prescibed period of ttuo gears u.tith effect from 02.05-2023 uide Memo No.DED / Op / HBG / JAO / ADM /F./D.No.911/23, dated 04.O5_2023 as illegal, arbitrory, unjus| uiolatiue of the principles of natural justice and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.86 GAD, d.ated_ 08.03.1994, besides being uiolatiue of Article 14, 16, 1 9(1)(g) and 2 1 of ttrc Constitution of India, consequentlg, direct the 1"1 respondent to reinstate the petitioner into seruice the tnterest of justice and pass..."

2. Heard Sri N. Manohar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; learned Government pleader for Services - II appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, iearned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. . 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as a Line Inspector in the respondent - Company, the 4th respondent has issued impugned order vide Memo No. DtrE / oP/ HBG/ JAo/ ADM/F-/D.No'811/23, d.ated 04.05.2023, placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from O2.O5.2O23 on the ground that he had ailegedly demanded and accepted bribe Consequently, a case in FIR No.06lRCT-CR-2/2023, dated 02.O5'2023 was registered. against the petitioner by the ACB Ofhcials and no charge sheet is hled as on date. tl. Learned counsel further submits that even after lapsc of two years, no steps were taken by the respondents to review the impugned suspension order. Further, as per G'O'Ms'No'86 General Administration (Ser.C), dated O8.03. 1994 issued by the (iovernment, the orders of the suspension sha1l have to be reviewccl at the end of every six months and the reviewing authoritl' should take a decision regarding the continuance or otherwise of the employee concerned under suspension. Hence, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the respondents to revier,r' the suspension order of the petitioner, dated 04.O5 '2023 and to reinstate the petitioner into service. "' .- .t{; a*'.."1 '-a; 3

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court, dated 29.02.2024 in W.p.No.S069 of 2024, and prays this Court to pass a similar order in the present writ petition also.

6. The said submission is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for respondents.

7. The relevant portion of the order d,aLed 29.02.2024 in W.P.No.5069 of 2024, is extracted hereunder: "5. In uieut of the submission made bg learned counsel for the respectiue parties, uithout going into the meits of the case, thi.s Writ petition is di.sposed of tuith a direction to respondent No.S to reuieut tlte suspension order of the petitioner, dated 09.O3.2023 as per G.O.Ms.No.86 General Admini.strotion (Ser.C), doted O8.03.j994 and pass appropiate orders, in accordance tuith laut, as expeditiouslg as possible, preferablg within a peiod of four (O4) uteeks from the date of receipt of a copg of this order and communicate a copg thereof to tLe petitioner.."

8. Having regard to the submissions made by the Iearned counsel appearing for the respective parties, ald for the reasons alike in the order dated 29.02.2024 in W.p.No.5O69 of €tr 4 2024, llithout going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No l to revieu, the suspension order of the petitioner, dated 04 05 '2023 as per G.O.Ms.No.86 General Administration (Ser.C), dated 08.03.1994 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of lour (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shail stand closed SD/.A.PRATHIMA DEPUTYREGISTRAR NOTE: That the direction at paragraph No.8 of the order dated 25.07.2025 in WPNo. 21584 ot 2025 is corrected and substituted as "respondent No.1" as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court dated 09.09.2025 in lA No. 2 of 2025 This amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 05.08.2025 //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.PRATHIMA DEPUTYREGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Divisional Engineer, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, Operations, Habsiguda Division, Habsiguda.

2. One CC to SRI N. MANOHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, S.C. for TSSPDCL IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies N/P W € HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 0910912025 AMENDED ORDER WP.No.21584 of 2025 ',,:. \t- r, ;/ .$ ,l ilr, l:., '\., ^c\ \" + _l .a-;. -. \) ")1. :'F Itr;-i l. ------.:.-' ,