Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

G Prabhakar Rao vs The State Of Ap on 5 February, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

   HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

               WRIT PETITION No.23555 of 2020

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India claiming the following relief:-

"to issue an appropriate order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.6208/VC(2)/2019-1, dated 01.11.2019 and the consequential proceedings in Proc.No.TRB02- ADMNOMISP/46/2020-VIG SEC-RBADMIN(1234467), dated 25.09.2020 issued by the respondent No.2 wherein my suspension was extended for six months without mentioning any reasons as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the settled legal position, apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith and to pass such other order or orders."

2. The petitioner was working as Deputy Executive

Engineer (R&B) Sub Division, Rajampet Holding Additional

Charge of the post of E.E. (R & B) APSHP Division, Kadapa at

Rajampet and he was implicated in Crime No.5/RCT-

KDP/2019 under Section 7 of PC Act, dated 28.10.2019.

Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide

proceedings dated 01.11.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent.

Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a categorical

representation dated 19.03.2020 to the 2nd respondent

bringing to his notice that there is no truth in the allegation

leveled against him in the complaint lodged by one Sri S.Obula

Reddy to the ACB and the seized documents itself would

disclose the fact that the ACB Officers were misguided by the

unscrupulous complainant and there is no official favour

pending before the petitioner and there is no force in the

allegation that the petitioner demanded bribe for sanction of

pending contract work final bill of the complainant. The

petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to consider his

representation and reinstate him into service and the same

was not considered by the 2nd respondent. Hence, the present

writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the

respondents.

4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterating the contentions with regard to placing this

petitioner under suspension, demonstrated that the order

dated 25.09.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent is bereft of any

reasons, and the same is in most casual manner and requested

to set aside the same.

4. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioner limited his

request to set aside the order dated 25.09.2020, whereas, the

learned Government Pleader for Services-II submitting that the

period of six months is over and further review has been taken

place on 18.08.2020, and therefore, this order cannot be set

aside.

5. Admittedly, this petitioner was placed under

suspension vide proceedings No. 6208/VC(2)/2019-1, dated

01.11.2019. As per G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994 and

G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 19.08.2008, issued from time to time,

such suspension is to be reviewed for every six months, and in

the process of review, the order dated 25.09.2020 is passed,

which reads as follows:

" In the reference 6th cited, it is informed that the Government has reviewed the case of Sri G.Prabhakar Rao, Dy.E.E.(R&B)(U/S) with the Deputy Chief Engineer and the Joint Director, Anti Corruption Bureau on 20.08.2020 at 2.00 P.M. and have decided that he shall continue under suspension for further six months.

Accordingly, Sri G. Prabhakar Rao, Dy.E.E.(R&B)(U/S) is continued under suspension for further Six months."

6. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that no specific reason is assigned for extension of

suspension of six months. Undoubtedly, the order under

challenge is an administrative order and the authorities

concerned have to apply their mind and pass reasoned order,

but, without reasons passed an order for extension of

suspension for another six months. Since the reason is heart

and sole of the administrative order passed by the authorities

under the statute and that such reason assigned in the order

is a guide to the appellate authority, if any, and therefore, it is

mandatory to record reasons while passing an order reviewing

the suspension order as directed by the Government from time

to time by its order. In the absence of any reasons, the order

cannot be sustained under law. The Court in Buddana

Venkata Murali Krishna vs State of A.P. rep by its Principal

Secretary, TR & B Department in W.P.No.7618 of 2015 dated

01.06.2015 incidentally held as follows:

"In the exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.86 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 08.03.1994, directed that the order of suspension against a government servant should be reviewed at the end of every six months; the appropriate reviewing authority should take a decision regarding continuance or otherwise of the employee concerned under suspension, with reference to the nature of charges, where delay in finalisation of the enquiry proceedings cannot be attributed to the employee or when there is no interference from the employee in facilitating the enquiry; an outer limit be provided, as two years from the date of suspension, failing which the public servant should be reinstated without prejudice to the proceedings being pursued; however, in exceptional cases, considering the gravity of the charges, one could be continued under suspension even beyond a period of two years, especially in cases where there is deliberate delay caused due to non-cooperation of the employee concerned; the concerned Principal Secretary/Secretary of the department should review suspension, in cases of their department, at an interval of six months with the representative of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, if the proceedings arose out of the investigation conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau; and they should make suitable recommendations as to the desirability or otherwise of further continuance of the officers under suspension. The executive instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994 were, more or less, reiterated in the subsequent instructions issued in G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 19.08.2008.

After exercising its powers to review the order of suspension, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.526 dated 19.08.2008, the government, vide Memo No.9710/Vig-Tr/1/2014 dated 02.04.2015, informed the Transport Commissioner and the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, that suspension of the petitioner was reviewed in its meeting held on 26.02.2015; in the review meeting the Joint Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau had mentioned that the case was under active investigation, and required three months time for its completion; and, therefore, it was decided to review the case again after three months. The government ordered that the respondent should be continued under suspension until further review."

7. Applying the principles laid down in the above

judgment, the impugned order dated 25.09.2020 is set aside

while directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate

reasoned order considering the facts and circumstances of the

case. The petitioner though challenged the very suspension

itself, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner did not

insist for deciding the validity of the suspension while limiting

his request to the order dated 25.09.2020. However, the scope

of interference is limited in view of law declared by Division

Bench of A.P. High Court in Buddana Venkata Murali

Krishna's case in W.P.No.7618 of 2015 (supra).

8. Therefore, no finding is recorded. However, it is left