Hyderabad:Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea filed by a couple challenging the rejection of their application for a certificate of essentiality and eligibility for surrogacy under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by a couple questioning the order of the commissioner of health rejecting their application on the ground that the petitioner’s chromosomal report showed a 46,XY karyotype. The petitioners contended that the decision was arbitrary, unscientific and in violation of their fundamental rights under the Constitution. The petitioner, identified as female in her birth certificate, Aadhaar card and other official documents, contended that she met all statutory requirements under the Act, being a legally wedded woman above 21 years of age and medically certified to require surrogacy. Counsel for the petitioner contended that while a typical female has 46,XX chromosomes and a typical male 46,XY, certain medical conditions, such as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) and other disorders of sex development (DSDs), can result in individuals having a 46,XY karyotype while developing female anatomy and gender identity. Counsel for the petitioner contended that authorities ignored this medical reality and presumed the petitioner to be male solely based on the chromosomal report, disregarding her legally recognised gender and lived identity. The petitioner alleged that the impugned order reflected a lack of medical understanding and gender sensitivity, amounting to gender-based discrimination contrary to the object and spirit of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act. The judge directed the respondents to file their response.
HC remands bank officer’s case for fresh hearing
Hyderabad:Finding that the disciplinary process was tainted by a pre-judged showcause notice but not beyond correction, a two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court set aside a single judge’s order, which annulled the proceedings against a Telangana Grameena Bank officer and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing a writ appeal filed by the bank challenging the order of the single judge, which allowed the writ plea of P. Balakistaiah, a bank officer, holding that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated for denial of cross-examination, pre-determination of punishment and disproportionate penalty. In the writ petition, Balakistaiah challenged the punishment imposed on him by the disciplinary authority in 2017, the subsequent appellate and review orders, and sought restoration of his pay and seniority. The single judge held that the inquiry suffered from multiple infirmities, notably, the denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, appointment of the same officer as presenting officer who earlier investigated the case, and issuance of a showcause notice revealing a predetermined decision on the punishment. Applying the doctrine of proportionality, the single judge set aside the punishment and directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Assailing that decision, the bank argued before the panel that even if the showcause notice appeared to disclose a pre-judged mind, the proper course would have been to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration, rather than setting aside the entire proceedings. The panel observed that the show-cause notice dated July 25, 2017, revealed a pre-determined view on the punishment to be imposed, which rendered it unsustainable. The panel held that the purpose of issuing a showcause notice after the inquiry report is to give the delinquent officer an opportunity to submit his comments before the disciplinary authority takes a final decision. Without going into the merits or findings of the inquiry, the panel remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh showcause notice along with a copy of the inquiry report, allow the officer to submit his reply, and thereafter pass a reasoned order on the penalty to be imposed.
HC issues NBWs against 5 SCCL officials
Hyderabad:Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court issued non-bailable warrants against five senior officials of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) for willful disobedience of the court’s order dated October 24. The warrants were issued in a contempt case filed by P. Rajamallu, retired deputy superintendent, from the exploration department of Singareni Collieries, who pointed out that the officials failed to comply with its earlier directions to implement directions in his writ petition concerning pay anomaly correction. The writ petition, filed in 2018, sought a direction to rectify the petitioner’s basic pay anomaly that arose from 1991, where his junior was drawing a higher basic pay due to differences in increment dates. The judge directed the SCCL management to step up the petitioner’s basic pay from `2,065 to `2,145 per month as on September 1, 1991, and to grant corresponding monetary benefits within two months, as per the company’s Circular dated October 4, 1996. During the contempt proceedings, the judge observed that despite receiving notices under the Contempt of Courts Act, the officials failed to appear before the court. Finding their conduct deliberate and non-compliant, the judge deemed it necessary to issue non-bailable warrants to secure their presence. The officials against whom the warrants were issued include N. Balaram, chairman and managing director; K. Venkateswarulu, director (PAW); Kavitha Naidu, general manager (personnel), Kothagudem; N. Radha Krishna, chief general manager; and M. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, general manager of SCCL. The Registrar General of the High Court was directed to communicate the order to the Director General of Police to ensure the execution of the warrants and secure the presence of the contemnors before the court.
