High Court · 2025

CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct representation dt 0410412025 for therwise petitioner stands petitioner SRI N. MANOHAR Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the 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 .,/ WRIT PEf,ITION No'21535 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Aticlcle 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: uith effect Memo issue an aPProPriate porticutarlg one in Wit, Order or Directton' the nature of a Wit of Mandamus declaing the action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner under suspension begond ttLe prescribed Peiod of ttuo I[o. 02.05.2023 Pursuant C,M(HRD)/ GM(Per')/ ASIDC/ P)(DC-D/ 126-C5/ 202s- Og.O5.2023 as illegal, arbitrary ' unjust' 1, dated of ttrc pinciptes of natural justice and to G.O.Ms.No.86 GAD, d"ated 08'03'7994' contrary besides being uiolatiue of Articte 14' 16' 19(1)(G)' 21 of theConstitutionoflndio'consequentlg'directthel* respondent to reinstate the petitioner into seruice tlrc interest of Ttstice and Pass"'" uiolatiue

2.HeardSriN.Manohar'learnedcounselappearingon behalf of the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Services - II appearing on behalf of respondent No' 1 ald Sri N' Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited' appearing on behalf of resPondent Nos'2 to 5' 2

3. Learned counser for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner n,as working as an Additional Assistant Engineer in the respondent - Company, the 2.a respondent had issued an impugned order vide Memo No. COM(HRD) / cM(per.) /ASIDC / PO(DC-I) I 126_CS/ 2023_r, dared 09.05.2o23, placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from 02.OS.2o23on the ground that he had allegedly demanded and accepted bribe. Consequently, a case in FIR No.06/RCT-CR-2 / 2023, dated O2.O5.2O23 u,as registered against the petitioner by the ACB Officials ard no charge sheet is filed as on date. 4. Learned counsel further submits that even after lapse of two years, no steps were taken by the respondents to review the impugned suspension order. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.B6 Generar Administration (ser.c), dated 08.03.1994 issued bv the Government, the orders of the suspenston sha_li have to be end of every six months and the revlewlng authority should take a decision regarding the continuance or otherwise of the empioyee concerned under suspension. Hence, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the respondents to review the suspension order of the petitioner, dated Og.OS.2023 ald to reinstate the petitioner into service. reviewed at the ( 3

5.L,earnedcounselforthepetitionerlastlysubmitsthatthe present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court, d'ated,29.02'2024 in W'P'No'5069 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'ated 29'02'2024 in W.P.No.5069 of 2024, is extracted hereunder: '5. In uieu,t of the submission made bg learned counsel for tle respectiue parties' tttithout going into the meits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of rttith a directiort to respondent No'S to reuieu-t the suspension order of tle petitioner' dated 09-03.2O23 as per G'O'Ms'No'86 General Administration (Ser'C)' dated 08'03'1994 and pass appropriate orders ' in accordance uith laut' as expeditiouslg as possible' preferably rtLithin a period. of four (04) ttteeks from the date of receipt of a copg of this order and communicate a copA thereof to the Petitioner""

8. Having ."g"ta to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties' ald for the reasons alike in the order d'ated 29'O2'2O24 in W'P'No'5O69 of I l i I l I I i l i i 1 I 2O24 , without going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. I to review the suspension order of the petitioner, dated 09.0S.2023 as per G.O.Ms.No.86 General Administration (Ser.C), dated 08.03. 1994 ald pass appropriate orders, in accordalce with larv, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) u,eeks 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 aly, sha,1l stand closed. SDi.A.PRATHIMA DEPUry REGISTRAR Note : .That the typographical error crept in wrongly reading the Respondent number as "Respondent No.1" in place of ,,Respondent No.2" in Paragraph No.g of the Order. dated 25-07-2025 in W p.No.21S35 of 2025. The same is substituted and amended as per the Order, dated 09-09-2025 in I.A.No.2 oi ZOZS. This Amended order shall substitute the earlier order which has already been dispatched on 05-08-2025. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.PRATHIMA PUTY REGISTRAR Dt ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman and Managing Director, Terangana state Southern power Distribution Company Limit6d,-Mint Comiound, EvaeraOiA.

2. One CC to SRt N. MANOHAR, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two ccs to GP for services-[, High court for the State of rerangana at 4. One CC to SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY, S.C. foTTSSpDCL tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies. Hyderabad. [OUT] \(# BSK ?, I HIGH COURT DATED:2St0t t202i 09t09t2025 I i I J !'-;

4.. ,,,.i :: '' l.\a,' .$ .$ : . .r..'''. '-. .r ;':)ri,t '\ :;: -._ itl-,- - .\,. ', ! \ ]' ',-r' 4', AMENDED ORDER WP.No.21535 of 2O2S DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ' I i l I l i I I i I I I i I i I I I I I I I , ! I i 1 i t l I i t I I i t l I I I I I i I I l j I \