IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No : 15008 of 2009 Between: 1 Chand Shah S/o. Late Gulab Shah Q.No. 47'C Type II, GC, CRPF Ranga Reddy J.J.Nagar, Hakimpet, Secunderabad. 2 D.Chandra Mouli S/o. D.Mallaiah Q.No. 452 Type II, Chandrayana Gutta Keshvagiri Hyderabad 3 S.K.Jena S/o. Diwakar Jena C/o. Tusar Kur. Tena, H.No. 18.13.188 Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Chandrayana Gutta Post, Hyderabad 4 Somsekhar Jane S/o. Guranna Jane Kinnisultan Post, Aland Tq. Gulbarga District, Karnataka - 585302 5 K.Reddappa, Q.No.-SPL Type I-116, GC.CRPF, Chandrangutta Hyderabad -A.P. 05 6 S.Abdul Hameed S/o. Late Syed Ahmed H.No. 18-8-278c/104, Rajiv Nagar, ( Raksha Puram Colony ) Kanchan Bagh hyderabad, PIN - 500058 7 Nagaraja K.Naik S/o.Kama Naik R/o. Haladota Village, Didrakan Post., Siddapur Tasil, Karwar ( District ), Karnataka-581 355 8 N.Vijay Kumar S/o. N.Sikhamani Machupalli Village Sidoutam Post & Mandal, Kadapa District. A.P. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 UOI Rep. by Its., The Director General of Police, Block No.1, Kendriya Karyala Parisar, Lodhi Road New Delhi. 03 2 The Inspector General ( P ) Road No. 10-C, Jubilee Hills, Near MP and LMA Colony, Hyderabad - 33 3 The Director General of Police, Hyderabad Range Group Center ( CRPF ) Hyderabad 05 4 The Director Inspector General of Police, ( DIGP ) Group Center ( CRPF ) Hyderabad 05 .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions duly set aside the impugned orders to the extent of petitioner in this Writ Petition:- (1) Lt No.P.VIII- 3/09-GCH-Estt-II charge Memorandum dated 28th January of 2009 of R4 (2) Lt No.P.VIII-3/09-GCH-Estt-II Dated 18th May 2009 of R4 and enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry officer and Disagreement Report of Disciplinary Authority Dt. 18-5-2009 of R4. (3) Lt. No.P.VIII-3/09-GCH-Estt-II Officer order dated 3rd June 2009 imposing the punishment order of " Compulsory Retirement " on the Petitioner. As these orders are illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Rules in force but also against Principles of Natural Justice Under Art. 14, 16, 311, 31192) of the Constitution of India the and liable to be quashed and set-aside and direct the R4 to reinstate the petitioner 1 to 8 into service forth- with with all consequential benefits of treating entire period is on duty and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.G.PAVANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.15008 OF 2009 ORDER: The writ petitioners invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions duly setting aside the following impugned orders to the extent of the petitioners in this writ petition: 1. Lt.No.P.VIII-3/09-GCH-Estt-II charge memorandum dated 28th January of 2009 of respondent No.4. 2. Lt.No.P.VIII-3/09-GCH-Estt.II dated 18th May 2009 of respondent No.4 and enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and Disagreement Report of Disciplinary Authority dated 18.5.2009 of respondent No.4. 3. Lt.No.P.VIII-3/09-GCH-Estt.II Officer Order dated 3rd June 2009 imposing the punishment order of ‘Compulsory Retirement’ on the petitioners and consequently sought for a direction to the 4th respondent to reinstate the petitioners 1 to 8 into service forthwith with all consequential benefits of treating entire period is on duty. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondaents submits that as against the impugned order dated 03.06.2009, the petitioners have preferred an appeal on 15.06.2009 before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending consideration and as such this writ petition is not maintainable. In the light of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, this Court is of the view that this writ petition cannot be entertained at this juncture since the appeal filed by the petitioners was pending consideration before the 2nd respondent. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners preferred an appeal against the impugned order dated 03.06.2009 before the 2nd respondent, but no action has been taken thereon. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of Six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 27-07-2009 Note: C.C. in two days (Bo) Gsn.