D V Rao vs The State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 1306 AP

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                      WRIT PETITION NO.18709 OF 2020
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

"to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the impugned action of the 2nd respondent keeping the services of the petitioner under continued suspension beyond 3 months and without review even after lapse of 6 months as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, set aside the same as such and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pass proceedings reinstating the petitioner into services immediately."

The main grievance of the petitioner is that while the petitioner

is working as Port Conservator, he was placed under suspension vide

proceedings No.DCEO/DoP/B1/115/2020-1 dated 11.02.2020 on

the ground that the petitioner involved in corruption case. He is

continuing under suspension without any review as per

G.O.Ms.No.86 Genl.Admn. (Ser.C) Department dated 08.03.1994.

The petitioner contended that in view of the order of the Apex Court

in "Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India1", he has to be

reinstated revoking the suspension order. Therefore, failure to review

suspension order by following the principle laid down in "Ajay Kumar

Choudhary v. Union of India" (referred supra) is arbitrary exercise of

power by the respondents.

Sri K.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while

reiterating the contentions urged in the writ petition, requested to

issue a direction to the respondents to review the suspension of the

petitioner in view of the G.O.Ms.No.86 Genl.Admn. (Ser.C)

Department dated 08.03.1994.

1 CDJ 215 SC 129 (Judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1912 of 2015 (arising out of SLP) No.31761 of 2013 dated 16.02.2015 MSM,J WP_18709_2020

Learned Government Pleader for Services - I contended that

the respondents are ready to undertake review in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.86 Genl.Admn. (Ser.C) Department dated 08.03.1994.

Undisputedly, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with

the suspension order is limited as held by the Division Bench of High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the

State of Andhra Pradesh in "Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna v.

State of A.P.2"

The principle laid down in "Ajay Kumar Choudhary v.

Union of India" (referred supra) cannot be applied since the

Apex Court did not consider the Constitutional Bench

judgement in "Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal3";

"O.P. Gupta v. Union of India4" and "Union of India v. R.P.

Kapur5". Thus, in view of the judgments referred supra, it is

difficult to interfere with the suspension order.

An order of suspension is a step in aid to the ultimate result of

the investigation or inquiry. The authority should also keep in mind

the public interest, the impact of the delinquent's continuance in

office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge.

The importance and necessity of proper disciplinary action being

taken against government servants for inefficiency, dishonesty or

other suitable reasons, cannot be over emphasized. While such

action may be against the immediate interest of the government

servant, yet it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the general

public for serving whose interests the government machinery exists

and functions. Suspension of a government servant pending an

2 2016 (3) ALT 727 3 (2013) 16 SCC 147 4 (1987) 4 SCC 328

AIR 1964 SC 787 MSM,J WP_18709_2020

enquiry is a necessary part of the procedure for taking disciplinary

action against him. (Khem Chand v. Union of India6).

As discussed above, the jurisdiction of this Court is

limited and therefore, this Court cannot interfere with such

order of suspension of a government servant.

In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no ground to

interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition.

However, it is appropriate to direct the respondents to review

the suspension order after expiry of six months from the date

of suspension in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 General Administration

(Ser.C) Department, dated 08.03.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.526 General

Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 19.08.2008.

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No

costs.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand

closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 03.03.2021 Ksp

AIR 1963 SC 687