Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
A. Hidayathulla vs The District Medical And Health ... on 17 March, 2021
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.6036 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the
respondents in continuing the petitioner under suspension with
effect from 20.8.2020 i.e., for more than six months, without any
review, which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.86, General Administration
(Services.C) Department, dated 08.03.1994, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was initially appointed as Watchman on 24.11.2008 and
subsequently, appointed to the post of Attender in the year 2020 and
working as such in the said post. While so, by virtue of order, dated
25.9.2020, of respondent No.1, the petitioner was kept under
suspension with effect from 20.8.2020 on the ground that he was
involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.330 of 2020 of Hindupur I
Town Police Station, Anantapur for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A and 307 read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, but no charge memo is issued yet
and departmental proceedings are initiated. Learned counsel for the
petitioner relies on the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by Secretary to Government (Home), Vs. Promod
Kumar IPS and another1, wherein the Apex Court, by relying on the
judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India2, held that
the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three
months if within this period memorandum of charges/charge sheet
SLP (Civil) No.12112-12113 of 2017
(2015)7 SCC 291
is not served on the delinquent officer/employee and that if
memorandum of charges/charge sheet is served, a reasoned order
must be passed for the extension of the suspension.
4. This case seems worse than the above case as no charge memo
is yet served though the petitioner was kept under suspension since
long time. G.O.Ms.No.86, dated 08.03.1994, relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the authorities have to
undertake reviews of orders of suspension for continuance beyond
the period of six months.
5. Hence, in the above circumstances, this Court deems it fit to
direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per
G.O.Ms.No.86, General Administration (Services.C) Department,
dated 08.03.1994, and by keeping in view the judgments of the Apex
Court referred supra, and reinstate the petitioner into service within
a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this
Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
__________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 17.3.2021
AMD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.6036 OF 2021
Date: 17.3.2021
AMD
