Sri B.Nagelswararao, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1620 AP

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                   WRIT PETITION NO.5158 OF 2021
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of

the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.V1/20022/1/

2020-4 dated 22.02.202 directing the 3rd respondent to take action

for suspending the petitioner and others and consequential

suspension proceedings of 3rd respondent A1/228/2021/11 dated

22.02.2021 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of

principles of natural justice, mechanical, non-application of mind

and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and

consequently set aside the same.

Petitioner was initially appointed as Attender on 26.12.2001.

Thereafter, he was promoted as Record Assistant on 23.05.2012,

Junior Assistant on 24.05.2014 and Senior Assistant on 12.02.2019

and working as Senior Assistant as on date. In the year 2019, he

was allotted to duties in "Festival Section" and after working for one

year, he was allotted the duties in "Sarees Section" in the year 2020.

Since then, he was working in "Sarees Section". The following are

the duties, the petitioner has to discharge in the "Sarees Section".

a] Godown Incharge

b) Receiving and issuing Sarees

c) Maintaining the file work

The procedure being followed in the temple is that if any saree

is donated to the Diety, the same will be deposited in the saree

receiving counter situated in the main temple premises at 7th floor.

Thereafter, the saree will be scanned along with bar code and MSM,J WP_5158_2021

photograph will be taken. Thereafter, the same will be carried by one

Sambaiah from 7th floor to godown which is in the 5th floor. The

same shall be received by the petitioner and keep the same in the

godown for safe custody. If the Vydic Committee request for any

saree the same will be given, after the indent is released by the

Executive Officer for performance of Poojas and other ritual to the

goddess.

While matter stood thus, the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB)

conducted a surprise check on 18.02.2021 in the temple premises

and as per their Radio Message two points were found against the

petitioner and on the basis of the same, the petitioner was placed

under suspension. The following are the two alleged irregularities

committed by the petitioner in discharging his duties:

"a. Two Pattu Sarees were not found in Sarees Godown of Rs.7000/- and Rs.3500/-.

b. On verification of Pattu Sarees on Barcode scanner, found two sarees of Rs.15000/- and Rs.2500/- the bar coding was not matched."

Based on the two alleged irregularities attributed to this

petitioner in utmost haste without properly verifying the records and

applying the mind, the order impugned in the writ petition was

passed. It is specifically contended that relating to saree worth

Rs.3,500/- an indent was raised as per the orders of the Executive

Officer on 04.02.2021 basing on which an entry was made in the

sarees issue register at page No.81 and the same was sent to the

Vydic Committee by making an endorsement PAT-210122000004

Dt. 22.01.2021 as such the same is not misappropriated.

Regarding Rs.7,000/- Pattu Saree is concerned, the same is available MSM,J WP_5158_2021

in godown but the bar code scanner was separated from the saree

and detached to it without proper verification.

It is further contended that, non matching of bar code amount

of Rs.15000/- and Rs.2500/- is not the fault of the petitioner

because it is the person in the receiving counter has to take the

photograph of the saree and scan the bar code. The sarees are very

much available but the photos taken by the receiving counter does

not match. Hence, it is not his mistake. Finally, it is contended that

there is no allegation against this petitioner except the technical

issues for which suspension is unwarranted and the suspension

order was challenged on the following grounds:

a. The second respondent has no jurisdiction to direct the third respondent to suspend the petitioner as per Section 37 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30/87).

b. The Executive Officer, who is competent to suspend the petitioner as per Section 37 if the income of temple is more than Rs.10.00 Lakhs.

c. That the action of the second respondent in directing the Executive Officers to suspend and the consequential orders of the Executive Officer are mechanical in nature and not basing on independent application of mind and issuing the orders after prima facie finding the truth in the allegation.

d. The Executive Officer who is the competent and disciplinary authority not applied his mind and not verified whether the allegations are proven correct but simply issued the suspension order basing on the radio message and directions of the second respondent.

e. It is general principle that the second respondent can only direct the third respondent to take disciplinary action but in the instant case he was directed the MSM,J WP_5158_2021

Executive Officer to suspend the incumbents which is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. f. The Executive Officer of the temple who cross checks, verifies and has the power and authority over an institution in the administration and management of the affairs of the temple as per Section 29 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 instead of taking action against the Executive Officer suspending the innocent employees is unknown to the law that to at the behest of the second respondent is illegal.

g. In similar circumstances, a Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1789 of 2004 and batch dated 19.03.2008 has held that the Commissioner of Endowments does not have competence or jurisdiction to suspend the temple employees, thereby the order passed by the Executive Officer of the temple without applying his mind placing the petitioner under suspension is contrary to the principle laid down in W.A.No.1789 of 2004 and batch and the judgment of the Apex Court in `State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty1, requested to set aside the same."

During hearing respondents did not file counter, but placed on

record written instructions along with material collected by ACB

received by Radio Message to substantiate the case of the

respondents while contending that there is material against this

petitioner about misappropriation of the property of the temple and

requested to dismiss the petition.

During hearing, Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the

petitioner, mainly demonstrated that the order was passed in a

routine manner without applying his mind by respondent No.3 and

thereby, order is invalid placing reliance on Bimal Kumar

Mohanty's case (supra 1) and requested to pass appropriate orders.

(1994) 4 SCC 126 MSM,J WP_5158_2021

Learned Government Pleader for Endowments opposed the writ

petition on the ground that there is prima facie material against this

petitioner and the order was passed by third respondent only on the

direction of the second respondent-Commissioner by applying his

mind not in a routine manner and requested to dismiss the petition.

Undoubtedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension by

the impugned order on the ground that he indulged in

misappropriation of temple property i.e., sarees section while

discharging his duties as an employee. As the petitioner was in-

charge of the sarees section, he allegedly misappropriated sarees and

committed certain irregularities pointed out in the writ petition

stated above.

It is a most unfortunate situation prevailing in the third

respondent-Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Devasthanam and the

allegations made against this petitioner are two Pattu Sarees were

not found in Sarees Godown worth Rs.7000/- and Rs.3500/- and on

verification of Pattu Sarees on Barcode scanner, found two sarees of

Rs.15000/- and Rs.2500/- the bar cod`ing was not matched.

One of the contentions of the petitioner is that failure to supervise

the affairs of the temple does not constitute misconduct.

According to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct)

Rules, 1964;

(1) Every Government employee shall be devoted to his duty and shall maintain absolute integrity, discipline, impartiality and a sense of propriety.

MSM,J WP_5158_2021

(2) No Government employee shall behave in a manner which is unbecoming of such employee or derogatory to the prestige of Government.

(3) No Government employee shall act in a manner which will place his official position under any kind of embarrassment.

(4) No Government employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgement except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior, and shall, where he is acting under such direction, obtain the direction in writing, wherever practicable, and where it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing, shall obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon thereafter as possible. It shall be incumbent on such official superior to confirm in writing the oral directions given by him, and in any event, he shall not refuse such written confirmation where a request is made by the Government employee to whom such direction was given.

Explanation:- Nothing in sub-rule (4) shall be construed as empowering a Government employee to evade his responsibilities by seeking instructions from, or approval of, an official superior where such instructions are not necessary under the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities.

[(5) Every Government servant holding a superior post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all government servants for the time being under his control and authority.

Explanation: - A Government servant who habitually fails to perform the task assigned to him within the time set for the purpose and with the quality of performance expected of him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty.]

[(6) Prohibition regarding employment of children below 14 years of age : -No member of the service shall employ to work any child below the age of 14 years.] MSM,J WP_5158_2021

A Government employee is expected to display devotion to duty,

devotion to duty implies due care on the part of the employee in the

performance of the work assigned to him.

In Union of India v. J. Ahmed (referred supra), the Supreme Court

had an occasion to consider the scope of the expression "devotion to

duty" and has observed as follows:

'The expression 'devotion to duty' appears to have been used as something opposed to indifference to duty or easy-going or light-hearted approach to duty. If rule 3 were the only rule in the Conduct Rules it would have been rather difficult to ascertain what constitutes misconduct in a given situation. But rules 4 to 18 of the Conduct Rules prescribe code of conduct for members of service and it can safely stated that an act or omission contrary to or in breach of prescribed rules of conduct would constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings. This code of conduct being not exhaustive it would not be prudent to say that only that act or omission would constitute misconduct for the purpose of Discipline and Appeal Rules which is contrary to the various provisions in the Conduct Rules. The inhibitions in the Conduct Rules clearly provide that an act or omission contrary thereto as to run counter to the expected code of conduct would certainly constitute misconduct. Some other act or omission may as well constitute misconduct. Allegations in the various charges do not specify any act or omission in derogation of or contrary to Conduct Rules save the general rule 3 prescribing devotion to duty. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability while holding a high post would themselves constitute misconduct. If it is so, every officer rated average would be guilty of misconduct. Charges in this case as stated earlier clearly indicate lack of efficiency, lack of foresight and indecisiveness as serious lapses on the part of the respondent. These deficiencies in personal character of personal ability would not constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings."

In view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the judgement referred

supra, failure to devote to duty constitutes misconduct.

MSM,J WP_5158_2021

Turning to the present case, failure to supervise the Sarees

Section of temple constitutes misconduct prima facie. Having

exclusive control over the sarees in the godown of the temple, to

supervise the affairs of the temple which constitutes failure to

devotion to duty. Thus, the petitioner failed to devote to duty and

thereby it attracts misconduct as defined under Rule 3 of the Andhra

Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 prima facie. The

contention of the petitioner that lack of supervision does not amount

to misconduct is hereby rejected, in view of the law referred above.

However, this finding is only for limited purpose of deciding the issue

and the enquiry officer, if any, appointed for conducting enquiry

against this petitioner shall conduct enquiry uninfluenced by the

observation(s) or finding(s) recorded herein above and shall decide

the misconduct of this petitioner independently.

An order of interim suspension can be passed against the employee

while an inquiry/investigation is pending against him Suspending an

officer, and thereby disabling him from performing the duties of his

office on the basis that the contract is subsisting, is always an

implied term in every contract of service. When an officer is

suspended in this sense it means that the Government merely issues

a direction to the officer that so long as the contract is subsisting

and till the time, the officer is legally dismissed he must not do

anything in the discharge of the duties of his office. In other words,

the employer is regarded as issuing an order to the employee which,

because the contract is subsisting, the employee must obey. Where

the power to suspend is provided for either in the contract of

employment or in the statute or the rules framed thereunder, the MSM,J WP_5158_2021

order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the

relationship of master and servant with the consequence that the

servant is not bound to render service and the master is not bound

to pay his full salary and allowances.

If the order of suspension is a valid order, it has suspended the

contract of service and the government servant is entitled to receive

only such subsistence allowance as might be payable under the rules

and regulations governing his terms and conditions of service. As an

employer can suspend an employee pending an inquiry into his

conduct, the only question that can arise on such suspension will

relate to the payment during the period of such suspension. If there

is a provision in the Rules providing for the scale of payment during

suspension, the payment would be in accordance therewith. On

general principles, therefore, the authority entitled to appoint a

public servant would be entitled to suspend him pending a

departmental inquiry into his conduct or pending a criminal

proceeding, which may eventually result in a departmental inquiry

against him.

An order of suspension must be 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 MSM,J WP_5158_2021

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

enquiry is a necessary part of the procedure for taking disciplinary

action against him. (Khem Chand v. Union of India2).

Ordinarily, a government servant is placed under suspension to

restrain him from availing the further opportunity to perpetrate the

alleged misconduct or to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win

over the witnesses or to impede the progress of the investigation or

inquiry, etc. It would also remove the impression, among members of

the service that dereliction of duty would pay. When serious

allegations of misconduct are imputed against a member of a service,

normally it would not be desirable to allow him to continue in the

post where he is functioning. The government may rightly take the

view that an officer, against whom serious imputations are made,

should not be allowed to function anywhere before the matter has

been finally set at rest after proper scrutiny and holding of

departmental proceedings. The purpose of suspension is generally to

facilitate a departmental enquiry and to ensure that, while such

enquiry is going on-it may relate to serious lapses on the part of a

public servant-, he is not in a position to misuse his authority in the

same way in which he might have been charged to have done so in

the enquiry.

The effect on public interest, due to the employee's continuation in

office, is also a relevant and determining factor. Suspension is a

1963 AIR 687 MSM,J WP_5158_2021

device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose

is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim

measure in the aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent

may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of

his position. At this stage, it is not desirable for the court to find out

as to which version is true when there are claims and counterclaims

on factual issues. No conclusion can be arrived at without examining

the entire record. It is always advisable to allow disciplinary

proceedings to continue unhindered, and the concerned employee

kept out of the mischiefs range. If he is exonerated, he would then be

entitled to all the benefits from the date of the order of suspension.

The usual ground for suspension, pending a criminal proceeding, is

that the charge is connected with his position as a government

servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or

involves moral turpitude. In such a case a public servant may be

suspended pending investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a

criminal charge.

The power of suspension should, however, not be exercised in an

arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as a

vindictive misuse of power. A suspension order cannot be actuated

by mala fides, arbitrariness, or be passed for an ulterior purpose.

(Ashok Kumar Aggarwal's case (referred supra)). An order of

suspension should not be passed in a perfunctory or in a routine

and casual manner but with due care and caution after taking all

factors into account. (Ashok Kumar Aggarwal's case). It should be

made after consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or

the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee.

MSM,J WP_5158_2021

The authority should also take into account all available material as

to whether, in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to

continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office

is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry. (Ashok Kumar

Aggarwal's case). Ordinarily, an order of suspension is passed after

taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be

inquired into or investigated, and the nature of the evidence placed

before it, on application of mind by the disciplinary authority.

Whether the employee should or should not continue in office

during the period of inquiry is a matter to be assessed by the

concerned authority. Ordinarily, the Court should not interfere with

orders of suspension unless they are passed mala fide and without

there being even prima facie evidence on record connecting the

employee with the misconduct in question. The court cannot act as if

it is an appellate forum de hors the power of judicial review. The

Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and

no general law or formula of universal application can be laid down

in this regard. Each case must be considered depending on the

nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible

impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent

employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or

investigation. The authority should also keep in mind the public

interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while

facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge.

Even if the present case is examined based on the law referred

above, the Court must be slow in interfering with such suspension MSM,J WP_5158_2021

orders. When the competent authority recorded its satisfaction based

on the material placed before him along with the complaint that itself

suffice to place a Government servant under suspension. Though the

effect of suspension is serious on the career of the employee but

debarring him from discharging his duties temporarily is only to

avoid his interference or continuously indulging in such activities

prejudicial to the interest of the state. Normally, an appointing

authority or disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee

pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation

into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious

acts of omission and commission. The order of suspension would be

passed after taking into consideration of the gravity of the

misconduct sought to be enquired into or investigated and the

nature of evidence placed before the appointing authority and on

application of mind by the disciplinary authority. Appointing

authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects

and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under

suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be an

administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an

employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged

misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the

delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each

case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that

behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding

or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held

by him. In other words, it is to refrain him to avail further

opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the MSM,J WP_5158_2021

impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty

would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even

pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an

opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or

investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having

had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the

investigation or inquiry etc. But, each case must be considered

depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation

and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance

of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or

contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if

the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose,

the suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the

investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind

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

while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge.

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments

referred above, this Court has to examine the facts of the present

case. The first requirement is gravity of the charge of misconduct.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he has misappropriated

property belonging to Devasthanam which is a grave misconduct

since such acts are prejudicial to the interest of the State. Therefore,

keeping in view of the gravity of the misconduct sought to be

enquired into, the petitioner is placed under suspension by the 2nd

respondent.

MSM,J WP_5158_2021

The second requirement to place the Government servant under

suspension is there must be some evidence before placing a

Government servant under suspension. Here in this case, the second

respondent concluded that there is prima facie evidence in support of

the allegations based on the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau.

The said report is sufficient to form the basis, prima facie to conclude

that petitioner is indulged in the serious financial irregularities

prejudicial to the interest of the Temple.

After referring to the earlier Judgments in O.P. Gupta v. Union of

India (referred supra), where it was held that suspension of an

employee was injurious to his interests and must not be continued

for an unreasonably long period and, therefore, an order of

suspension should not be lightly passed; to K. Sukhendar Reddy v.

State of A.P (referred supra) which castigated selective suspension

perpetuated indefinitely in circumstances where other persons

involved had not been subjected to any scrutiny; and State of A.P.

v. N. Radhakishan3 wherein it was observed that it would be fair to

make the assumption of prejudice if there was unexplained delay in

the conclusion of proceedings; the Supreme Court, in Ajay Kumar

Choudhary's case, observed that suspension, specially preceding

the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in

nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an

indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound

reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would

render it punitive in naturer and post the drawing up of the

3 (1998) 4 SCC 154 MSM,J WP_5158_2021

Memorandum of Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer

delay.

All these principles were considered 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.4 to which I am one of the members of the Division

Bench. Therefore, applying the same principle to the present facts of

the case, it is difficult to interfere with the impugned order of

suspension, keeping in view of the seriousness and gravity of the

misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e.,

embezzlement of funds, recording of satisfaction by the State Audit

Officer and the Devasthanam, while passing impugned order of

suspension of the petitioner is supported by prima facie evidence.

The contention of the petitioner is that, as the Executive

Officer of the temple passed the order without applying his mind, he

cannot pass an order of suspension in a routine manner. But in the

present case only on receipt of radio message, a direction was issued

by the second respondent to the third respondent to place this

petitioner under suspension in view of the serious irregularities

attributed to this petitioner. Whether those irregularities are true or

not is a question to be decided only after due investigation by ACB.

Even according to the allegations made in the writ petition there are

some irregularities prima facie. Therefore, placing this petitioner

under suspension cannot be said to be a matter of routine and it is

based on the material collected by ACB. Therefore, the order is not a

matter of routine and it is only in accordance with the rules. The

4 2016 (3) ALT 727 MSM,J WP_5158_2021

contention of the petitioner before this Court that the order was

passed without applying his mind and drawn the attention of this

Court to Bimal Kumar Mohanty's case (supra 1), wherein at para

No.13 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it create on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It MSM,J WP_5158_2021

would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge."

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the

authorities have to apply their mind and cannot pass routine orders

of suspension, but here they applied their mind and prima facie

satisfied that there is material against this petitioner and

continuation of this petitioner in the office may amount to permitting

him to indulge in further activities and his continuation is against

the public interest. Therefore, respondent No.3 rightly placed this

petitioner under suspension and the order passed by the second

respondent cannot be interfered with by this Court at this stage

since jurisdiction of the High Court is limited under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India warranting interference in the orders of

suspension.

So far as power of respondent No.3 is concerned, he

independently exercised his power to place this petitioner under

suspension but basing on the material collected by ACB during

investigation. As the second respondent issued a direction to place

this petitioner under suspension, the order was passed by the third

respondent. Hence, on the ground of incompetency of second

respondent, the order cannot be set aside, since the order was

passed by the competent officer. Therefore, I find no illegality

warranting interference of this Court in the order of suspension

passed against this petitioner and consequently, the writ petition is

devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

MSM,J WP_5158_2021

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is

given to this petitioner to make a representation along with material,

if any, available to the third respondent to disprove the allegations

made against him. On making such representation, the third

respondent is directed to pass an appropriate order reviewing the

earlier order within four (4) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

writ petition shall stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 20.03.2021

Ivd MSM,J WP_5158_2021

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION No.5158 of 2021

Dated: 20.03.2021

Ivd MSM,J WP_5158_2021