Karem Rajendra Prasad, vs The Commissioner Of Collegiate ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2493 AP

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                  Writ Petition No.12382 of 2021

Order:

         Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Services-III for respondents.

The case of the petitioner is that the action of the 3rd

respondent in placing him under prolonged suspension

without carrying out the requisite review of the suspension

order is contrary to law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the

petitioner was suspended on 08.07.2017 and even by the

date of filing of the writ, the petitioner's suspension was not

reviewed and he was not reinstated into the service. He also

relies upon G.O.Ms.No.86 dated, 08.03.1994 which

provides an upper limit of three (3) years and

G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008, learned counsel for the

petitioner argues that the maximum period of suspension is

only two (2) years. He submits that in case, the delinquent

employee does not cooperate with the enquiry and in the

cause of delay, the suspension can be extended, provided,

till the Government is satisfied and that reasons are

recorded for the extension.

In the case on hand, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner is not at all

responsible for the delay. He also relies upon the case law

including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India, which are annexed as material papers to the writ

petition. Relying upon all these judgments and the facts,

the learned counsel argues that this is a fit case to allow

the writ petition.

In reply to this, the learned Government Pleader for

Services-III appearing for respondents relies upon the

written instructions, dated 16.07.2021. The instructions

reveal that the enquiry officer has completed his enquiry

and the petitioner was found guilty. It is also stated therein

that a proposal to impose a major punishment is

contemplated and that the matter has been addressed to

the Government for necessary orders vide letters dated

22.08.2019 and 24.11.2020. According to the learned

Government Pleader for Services-III, since the enquiry is

completed, since the petitioner was found guilty and as the

matter is pending with the Government, this Court should

not interfere and direct the suspension to be revoked. He

contends that the petitioner is not entitled to any lenience

from this Court.

A perusal of the written instructions and the

submissions reveal that the enquiry was completed on

31.01.2019. The writ petition is to being heard on

21.07.2021. For the last two years, the matter has not

received to the consideration of the Government nor was

any punishment actually imposed. As held by this Court

and Superior Courts earlier, this order of suspension itself

is a punishment. The G.O.s referred to by the learned

counsel for the petitioner prescribed an upper limit of two

years for the suspension. The extension beyond 2 years is

only permissible when there is "deliberate delay caused by

the non-cooperation of the employee". Subsequently in

G.O.Ms.No.526, it is amplified further by adding the

pendency of litigation as an additional ground for

prolonging the suspension.

In the case on hand, the instructions of the learned

Government Pleader do not state that the petitioner was

infact responsible for the delay and on the contrary, it is

clearly stated that the enquiry report was submitted on

31.01.2019. The mere fact that the letter was addressed to

the Government or that it is pending with the Government

cannot ensure to the benefit of the respondents. The

instructions reveal that the enquiry was completed on

31.01.2019 and the proposal to impose punishment was

addressed to the Government vide a letter dated

22.08.2019 (after gap of seven months) and the follow up

letter is dated 24.11.2020 which is almost 23 months after

the enquiry report is finalized. Till date, the decision of the

Government is not yet received.

In view of the earlier orders passed by the Coordinate

benches of this Court and the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu, represented by

Secretary to Government (Home) vs. Promod Kumar IPS

and another1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying

upon the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudary Vs. Union of

India2 held for suspension must be of small duration, this

Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to an

order. Apart from that, the instructions clearly reveal that

the enquiry is also completed. Therefore, this Court does

not find any rationale or reason for keeping the petitioner

under further suspension. There is no likelihood of his

influencing any witness/tampering etc.

There shall be a direction as prayed for in the writ

petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order

of this Court should be complied with within three (3)

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This

order will not preclude the State from taking action as per

the enquiry report and as per law. No costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date : 20.07.2021

VSL

SLP (Civil) No.12112-12113 of 2017

(2015) 7 SCC 291

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

Writ Petition No.12382 of 2021

Dated :20.07.2021

VSL