IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18486 of 2005 Between: V.Subbaramaiah, S/o.Late Sri.Mangaiah, TTD Service, R/o.Tirupathi, Chittoor district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt of A.P., rep by its Prl.Secretary , Revenue (Endts-III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Tirumal Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor district, Rep by its Executive Officer. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order , or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the issuance of the Memo.No.18252/endts.III/A1/2005-03 dt.13-6-2005 from the file of the 1st respondent and after perusing the same, quash the said Memo, dt.13-6-2005 by declaring it as arbitrary, illegal, Violative of the Principles of Natural Justice, without Jurisdiction and contrary to the order dt.18-9-2002 in WP.No.17922 of 2002 and with all other consequential benefits monetary and otherwise and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed being aggrieved by a Memo No.18252/Endts.III/A1/2005-3, dated 13.6.2005 issued by the Government-1st Respondent. It appears that earlier when the petitioner was involved in a misconduct, he was proceeded with departmentally and was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. However, the Specified Authority modified the said punishment to that of stoppage of three annual increments without cumulative effect. On appeal, the Government, further set aside the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority as modified by the Specified Authority and allowed the appeal on 22.8.2003 Thereafter, it appears that the Executive Officer of 2nd respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams vide his letter dated 7.2.2005 informed the Government and requested to review the order dated 22nd August, 2003 in the interest of the temple and to enforce discipline among its employees. However, the Government vide the impugned memo observed that the orders passed by the Government pertains to August, 2003 and as the Executive officer has requested the Government by his letter dated 4.1.2004 to review their own orders, such request cannot be entertained as it is not within the limitation prescribed under sub Section (1) of Section 122 of the Act 30 of 1987, surprisingly, condoned the delay in preferring the review under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and suspended the order dated 22nd August, 2003, pending review of the said order. It appears that neither the petitioner was issued with a notice before condoning the delay nor suspending the order dated 22nd August, 2003. I am of the opinion that the order dated 13.6.2005 was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, on this ground alone, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 13.6.2005 is set aside, leaving liberty to the first respondent, to take up the matter and, decide the same, as per law, on its own merits, after putting the petitioner on notice in this regard and hearing him if necessary. ___________ 20-02-2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Govt of A.P., rep by its Prl.Secretary , Revenue (Endts-III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Tirumal Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor district, Rep by its Executive Officer. 3. 2CD copies