Telangana High Court
Shamsher Singh vs The Union Of India on 17 October, 2022
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.21008 OF 2020
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
2. Perused the record.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner worked as Head Constable (G.D) at NTPC, Simhadri, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh from 10.05.2010 to 10.07.2013 and that on the ground the petitioner came to duty on drunken condition on 08.05.2013, he was taken to K.G. Hospital, Vishakapatnam and NTPC Hospital for medical examination.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the Blood and Urine samples which were taken to the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for analysis revealed that no Alcohol was noticed and that the sample did not contain any Ethyl Alcohol.
4. Further, the Enquiry Officer took into consideration the fact that the petitioner did not co-operate to undergo medical examination and concluded that the charge levelled against the petitioner is proved. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7356 of 2014 questioning the action of the Inspector General, South Sector 2 rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner dated 23.01.2014 is illegal and contrary and consequently, direct all the respondents to set aside the order No. V- 1504/L&R/SS/Rev/SS/2013-17 dated 23.01.2014 and reinstate the petitioner back into the service with all consequential benefits.
5. The High Court by its order dated 07.09.2015 passed orders on 27.10.2014 in W.P.No.7356 of 2014 observed as follows:
"Consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with the benefit of continuity of service without back wages."
6. The matter subsequently, had been carried by the respondents before the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court in Writ Appeal No.160 of 2015 and the said writ appeal was disposed of on 07.09.2015 remitting the matter back for consideration afresh directing the respondents to impose suitable punishment other than removal from service. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 02.03.2020 requesting to modify the final order dated 10.07.2013, and the representation of the petitioner had not been considered till as on date. Hence, the present writ petition.
3
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.03.2020, in accordance to law and pass appropriate orders, duly taking into consideration the observations in the order passed by the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court in favour of the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order duly communicating the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA 17.10.2022 KGK/VSU