IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEITH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 21171 of 2014 BETWEEN Dr. Dharmarakshak AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner; learned standing counsel for respondent No.1; and Mr. G. Anandam, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
The petitioner was given a notice dated 29.04.2014 by respondent No.1 informing him that an enquiry is proposed to be held against him with regard to the irregularities alleged, which are listed out as item Nos.1 to 9 in the said notice, and he was required to submit explanation. Petitioner sought four weeks time from respondent No.1 under his request dated 14.05.2014.
He also requested respondent Nos.3 and 4 under letter, dated 10.05.2014, to give him copies of certain documents relevant for the purpose of enabling him to submit reply. However, petitioner states that no documents were furnished to him and respondent No.1 has given another notice, dated 16.07.2014 after waiting for the explanation from the petitioner. The present writ petition is, therefore, filed questioning the impugned notice dated 16.07.2014. However, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is prepared to co-operate with the investigation and will furnish his explanation, but he was handicapped for want of records.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that petitioner may inspect the records at the office of NIMS and is at liberty to point out the relevant documents for which petitioner would be given copies of the same as early as possible. It is also transpired that the documents concerning the allegations are voluminous and, as such, the petitioner be granted sufficient time to verify the documents, take copies of the relevant documents, and then submit his explanation.
Since learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the petitioner must file explanation after inspection of the documents and after receiving the copies of identified documents to enable respondent No.1 to conduct the enquiry, as proposed, writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to permit the petitioner for inspection of documents, as sought for by him, and the petitioner shall thereafter point out the relevant documents, for which copies would be furnished by respondent Nos.3 and 4 as early as possible.
2) The inspection and verification of the documents shall be completed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.
3) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall furnish the copies of the documents within a week thereafter and petitioner shall submit his explanation to respondent No.1 within three weeks thereafter.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 30, 2014 LMV