DUBE R P Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner invoking the juri sdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the orders passed by the fourth respondent in O.A.No. 6837 of 1999 dated 19-11-1999 and quash the same.

(2.) The writ affidavit filed by the petitioner herein shows that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1972 and on consequential promotion now the petitioner is acting as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was transferred and posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Supplies Department in one of the existing vacancies vide G.O.Rt.No. 226 Home (Police-E) Department dated 1-2-1999. It is further stated by the petitioner that the issue of the orders by the Government is based on the recommendation made by the Director General and Inspector General of Police. The petitioner reported to duty on 3-2-1999 before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Andhra Pradesh. After reporting to duty, the petitioner was directed to report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Nizamabad, immediately, for anti- smuggling duties until further orders by a Radio message dated 6-3-1999 in No. A/1675/99 issued by the third respondent herein. It is the further case of the petitioner in pursuance of the Memo Rc.No. 16692/A-1/99, dated 7-7-1999, the petitioner was informed to report to the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. In the said memo, there is a reference of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies Ref.No.Admn.I (4)658/99, dated 17-6-1999. However, a copy of the said reference was not fu rnished to the petitioner, which refers toconsidering the suitability of certain Officers in the Police Department of Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department. It is further submitted by the petitioner that it is not within the competence of the second respondent or the third respondent to consider the suitability of Officers, who have been posted by the Government. It is further case of the petitioner that Director General and Inspector General or Police is the over all authority of the Police Department and he has submitted a report on 1-2-1999 which is the basis to the Government Order issued by the Government by which the petitioner was posted to the Civil Supplies Department. Now, the petitioner makes a grievance that the petitioner was tried to be repatriated and the petitioner was not given posting orders and no salary was given to him and therefore he filed O.A.No. 5032 of 1999 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad with a prayer to set aside the impugned memo issued by the third respondent in Rc.No. 16692/A-l /99 dated 7-7-1999 as illegal and without any jurisdiction. The O.A. was filed by the petitioner on 13-8-1999 and it was indefinitely posted without passing orders by the third (sic. fourth) respondent herein either with regard to the admission or with regard to the interim prayer. The petitioner filed CR.P.No. 3652 of 1999 wherein the prayer is that pending admission of O.A. by the 4th respondent, this Court may be pleased to issue an interim direction to the second and third respondents herein to give the petitioner posting orders in one of the existing vacancies in implementation of the orders issued by the Government in C.O.Rt.No. 227, Home (Police-E) Department dated 1-2-1999 and also pay the salary. This Court had passed the order on 14-9-1999. The said order was a comprehensive order. The copy of the said order was furnished to the petitioner on 15-9-1999 and on 16-9-1999 the petitioner reported to the first and second respondents requesting them toissue posting orders. But the fourth respondent passed the impugned order on 15-9-1999.

(3.) It further appears on record that similarly placed Officers had filed three different writ petitions, which came up for hearing before another Division bench in which this Court had passed the following directions: