Ch. Sarath Chandra Babu vs The State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 887 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


 HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                            &
          HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR


                           Writ Appeal No.348 of 2020

                           (Through video conferencing)

Ch.Sarath Chandra Babu, S/o Kausalendra Rao,
Aged 56 years, Occ : Sub-Registrar (Grade-II)
(Under Suspension), R/o Nuzividu, Krishna District.       ..    Appellant


                                     Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Registration & Stamps)
Department, A.P.Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District & 3 Others                                ..    Respondents


Counsel for the Appellant                     :   Mr. G.V.L.Murthy

Counsel for the Respondents                   :   Mr.N.Ashwath Narayana,
                                                  G.P. for Services-I

Date of Hearing                               :   01.02.2021

Date of pronouncement                         :      .02.2021


                                  JUDGMENT

(per C.Praveen Kumar, J)

1. Assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.09.2020

passed in Writ Petition No.13231 of 2020, the present Writ Appeal came

to be filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent.

2. The facts, which led to filing of the present Writ Appeal, are as

under :

The appellant herein sought for issuance of writ of Mandamus to

declare the action of the 3rd respondent i.e., The Deputy Inspector

General of Registration & Stamps, State of Andhra Pradesh, in placing the

appellant/writ petitioner under suspension vide proceedings dated

14.07.2020, as illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted. The appellant/writ

petitioner was working as a Joint Sub-Registrar-II at Eluru Sub-Registrar's

Office. A General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.), said to have been executed

by one Potturi Ramana Devi in favour of M.Nagendra Kumar, was

presented before the appellant/petitioner for registration. The property in

the document relates to a land admeasuring Ac.17.59 cents in

RS.Nos.1,2/1B and 3/2 of Vatluru, Pedapadu Mandal, Vasanthawada

Grama Panchayat, Amruthalingam Peta Village, West Godavari District.

The said G.P.A. was registered vide document No.3842/2019, dated

20.04.2019. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner was transferred to

Nuzividu, Krishna District. At that point of time, the 3rd respondent issued

the impugned proceedings placing the appellant/writ petitioner under

suspension on the ground that G.P.A. was registered in violation of the

circular issued by the 2nd respondent in CARD3/5991/2015, dated

13.03.2017. The said suspension order was passed on a Preliminary

Inquiry Officer's Report, dated 03.07.2020.

3. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by both the

sides and having regard to the law laid down on the subject, the learned

Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Challenging the same, the

present Writ Appeal came to be filed.

4. Sri G.V.L.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant,

would submit that as the suspension order was passed in the month of

July, 2020 and as six months have elapsed since then, the authorities

ought to have reinstated the appellant. He further pleads that the

preliminary report, which was made the basis to suspend the appellant,

was prepared with a mala fide intention and there is no truth in the said

report. It is his plea that the G.P.A. received was sent to Sub-Registrar,

Vatluru, for verification and consent and thereafter, the said document

was admitted for registration under the caption, "Anywhere Mode".

Having regard to the fact that there is no dispute with regard to identity of

the executants by the witnesses, the action of the respondents in placing

the appellant under suspension is improper and incorrect. He further

pleads that even if the charge stands proved, this being a technical

violation, the authorities cannot impose major penalty and as such, pleads

reinstatement of the appellant.

5. On the other hand, Sri N.Ashwath Narayana, G.P. for Services-I,

would submit that the question of reinstating the appellant, at this stage,

would not arise, as the charge-sheet was issued and communicated to the

appellant, to which he filed a Reply and thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was

appointed, who has already commenced the proceedings. Insofar as the

plea that six months period has elapsed from the date of passing of the

suspension order, the learned Government Pleader submits that steps are

being taken seeking extension of the period of suspension, in accordance

with the law laid down by the Apex Court.

6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the appellant is

entitled to reinstatement on the ground of delay in completion of

disciplinary proceedings or whether the order of suspension can be

quashed on the ground of vagueness?

7. As seen from the record, the order of suspension was passed on

14.07.2020. Thereafter, a charge-sheet came to be issued on 19.08.2020

to which a Reply/Written Statement was submitted by the appellant on

14.09.2020. An Enquiry Officer was appointed on 04.01.2021, who

commenced the proceedings and posted the matter to 03-02-2021.

8. In order to appreciate the legal issue raised, it will be appropriate

to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v.

Union of India 1. In the said case, the Apex Court in paragraph No.21

observed as under :

"21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension."

9. From the above it is clear that the currency of suspension order

should not be extended beyond a period of three months, if, within this

period, the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the

officer. But, in the instant case, the suspension order was passed on

14.07.2020 and the charge-sheet was issued on 19.08.2020. Thereafter,

a reply to the said charges came to be submitted by the delinquent officer

on 14.09.2020. Hence, it is clear that the charge-sheet was served on the

delinquent officer within a period of three months from the date of

issuance of the suspension order. As such, the appellant cannot claim any

benefit on that score.

10. Insofar as seeking extension of suspension, the Apex Court has

held that a reasoned order is required to be passed, while extending the

currency of suspension. The plea taken by the appellant is that as six

(2015) 7 SCC 291

months period has elapsed from the date of suspension, the authority

ought to have reinstated the appellant. But, that cannot be a ground for

reinstatement, having regard to the ratio laid down in

Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra) and when steps are being taken

seeking extension of currency of suspension.

11. Further, in Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna v. State of A.P.

and Ors.2 a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, after

referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar

Choudhary's case, observed as under :

"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."

2015 (6) ALD 694

12. A reading of the above would show that in view of the

G.O.Ms.No.86, the order of suspension against a government servant

should be reviewed at the end of every six months and the reviewing

authority should take a decision regarding continuance or otherwise of the

employee concerned under suspension, with reference to the nature of

the charges, where delay in finalization of the enquiry proceedings cannot

be attributed to the employee. It also states that 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case; gravity of charge and in view of the representation made by the

learned Government Pleader that steps are being taken seeking extension

of currency of suspension in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court

and as the enquiry proceedings have commenced, we see no reason to

interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed, however, without

costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                            C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

skmr