High Court Orders CBI Probe Into Death of Law Grad
Hyderabad: Justice Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct a fresh probe into the death of a law graduate from Suryapet in suspicious circumstances, stating that the investigation conducted by the police was quashed due to “serious errors, inconsistencies and reasonable apprehension of bias”. The judge passed the order in a writ petition filed by the deceased’s father, Dharavath Bhaskar, objecting to the manner in which the investigation into his son’s death was being conducted and demanding that the investigation be handed over to an independent body. It was observed that the manner in which the investigation was conducted raised serious doubts about the fairness and completeness of the investigation. The judge noted that the investigating agency had prematurely advanced on the theory of suicide without thoroughly examining the material suggestive of the circumstances of the murder. The court took cognizance of the allegations that the deceased, who belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community, was facing opposition due to inter-caste relationship and observed that the caste angle and possible offenses under the SC/ST (Prevention of Cruelty) Act were not properly investigated. The judge found deficiencies in the collection and preservation of electronic evidence, delays in obtaining forensic materials, inconsistencies in medical opinions, and failure to promptly transmit records to the deceased’s family. Holding that transfer of the matter to another government agency would not adequately address the concerns expressed by the petitioner, the court handed over the investigation to the CBI and directed the agency to file a regular case, conduct a fresh investigation into all possible offenses, including murder and criminal conspiracy, and submit an appropriate final report in accordance with law.
HC accepts court’s request for shorthand for promotion
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court accepted the writ plea of a court stenographer challenging the rejection of her promotion to the post of chief administrative officer (category-I) (CAO, C-1) on the ground that she obtained her degree through distance learning without prior permission from the competent authority. The panel, comprising Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda, was dealing with a writ petition filed by D. Nagender, a first-class stenographer in the court division at Miryalguda in Nalgonda district. The petitioner questioned the action of the authorities in not submitting his declaration dated March 18 for validation of his bachelor’s degree obtained through distance learning from Kakatiya University in 2011-14. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that similarly situated employees were given qualifications attestation and records corresponding to their service records, but only similar treatment was denied to the petitioner, making the action discriminatory, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The writ petition attacked the letter dated February 17 issued by the Chief District Magistrate, Nalgonda, refusing to consider the petitioner’s candidacy for promotion to the post of CAO, C-1 on the ground that the qualification was obtained without prior permission. At the hearing, the panel was informed that the plaintiff received the qualification in 2014 and that this was recorded in his service record. Despite the alleged fault, the plaintiff was awarded the Order III on October 9, 2017. From Class II. Class and later on July 19, 2022, II. It was submitted to the court that he was given two promotions from Class I to Class I and continued his service without any adverse action regarding the said qualification. The panel directed standing counsel to the Supreme Court administration to take directions in the matter and posted the case to June 17.
Sweeper with 30 years of service becomes tidy
Justice Surepalli Nanda directed the state authorities, including the police, to consider within four weeks the claim of a person who has served the police for over three decades for a paltry amount of ₹ 4,000 per month for regularization with retroactive effect and resulting service benefits. The judge effectively granted a writ petition filed by Mohd Nizamuddin, who complained not only of being denied wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act but also of being subjected to near-slavery due to his helplessness. In his 32-page judgment, Justice Nanda quoted extensively from apex court judgments and explained the different categories in which governments violated the rights of employees in various ways. He reiterated the principle that budgetary constraints and compliance with employment rules require consideration, but that these “do not exempt the employer from legal obligations or exclude equitable rights”. The judge added: “Bureaucratic restrictions cannot overshadow the legitimate rights of workers who have actually served continuously in regular positions for a long period of time.” He faulted the authorities for failing to discharge their duties while reviewing the petitioner’s request for regulation. Referring to various pronouncements of the High Court and the Supreme Court, Justice Nanda held that the petitioner was entitled to regularisation. The court fell short of directing the petitioner’s disposition and directed the authorities to consider the same within four weeks from the date of the petitioner’s fresh application.
