Pettem Nageswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1307 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                    WRIT PETITION NO.19374 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 9 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 Village Revenue Assistant, he was placed under

suspension vide proceedings No.REV-ASECOACB/1/2020-SA (A1)-

CLO-EG dated 27.01.2020 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 AIR 2015 SC 2389 MSM,J WP_19374_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_19374_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