MOHAMMED AZHAR HUSSAIN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (R&B)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Chilpireddy Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government Pleader for Services-III for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

(2.) The present writ petition (TR) is filed to call for the records relating to and connected with the impugned proceedings No.E6/1324/2011/07/2013, dtd. 21/5/2013 of respondent No.1 and set aside or quash the same by holding the same as illegal, arbitrary, improper and imposing the punishment of termination without regular enquiry is bad in law and stigmatic in nature and contrary to the various judicial pronouncements including violation of all principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits thereon.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner by name late Mohd. Shukur had expired while working as Office Subordinate in the respondents' organization on 4/5/2012 in harness. The mother of the petitioner has submitted an application on 28/7/2012 before respondent No.1, wherein she requested for appointment to her son i.e., the petitioner herein, in a suitable post on compassionate grounds and along with the application, she enclosed the required documents. Taking into consideration of all the aspects, respondent No.1, being an appointing authority, issued appointment orders vide proceedings No.E6/1324/CA/2011/ 216, dtd. 8/10/2012, appointing the petitioner as Watchman under social security measure on compassionate grounds. After receiving the above orders, the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner made representations before respondent No.1, requesting to appoint the petitioner as Office Subordinate instead of Watchman. After careful examination, respondent No.1 issued modification orders vide proceedings No.E6/1324/ 2011/2731, dtd. 20/11/2011 appointing the petitioner as Office Subordinate instead of Watchman and posted in the office of respondent No.2. Accordingly, the petitioner joined in the office of respondent No.2 on 21/11/2012 and since then he is discharging his duties as Office Subordinate without any complaints.