V.Srinivasa Raju, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3961 AP

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


                       IA.No.1 of 2021
                               In
                    W.P.No.15224 of 2021


ORDER:

This application is filed to suspend the suspension

order dated 19.07.2021 issued against the petitioner.

This Court has heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned

counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for

Services-II appearing for respondent No.3.

The petitioner who is working in the Endowments

Department was suspended by orders dated 19.07.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the

suspension is motivated, mala fide and is issued for

absolutely extraneous reasons. He submits that the

preceding this suspension order an enquiry was conducted

into the very same charges and on 20.06.2021 enquiry report

was given by which the Enquiry Officer held that the charges

are not really proved. Apart from that, he submits that

another set of charges were created and foisted against the

petitioner. These charges also resulted in an exoneration.

Learned counsel relies on both these findings which are given

by the Assistant Commissioner on 20.06.2021. Learned

counsel, therefore, argues that the Enquiry Officer did not

find any dereliction of duties in discharging the petitioner's

legitimate duties or with regard to the illegal sale of the lands.

Therefore, he submits that the entire action is vitiated and

mala fide. Apart from this, he also argues that basing on

adverse news items, the present charges are brought into

being and the petitioner is placed under suspension on

19.07.2021. He argues that from 19.07.2021, till date of

hearing of the present writ petition, no charge memo has been

issued against the petitioner. Therefore, it is his contention

that this charge memo also is contrary to law. He submits

that despite the earlier orders, the present charge memo is

issued virtually as a punishment to the petitioner. Relying

upon the case law that was cited and filed along with the writ

petition, the learned counsel argues that this is a fit case in

which the Court should interfere and suspend the operation

of the proceedings dated 19.07.2021, as he also argues that

the subsequent explanations which are admitted to be given

by the respondents are not borne out by the original record

and that subsequent explanation cannot be used determining

what is contended in the suspension order. He relies upon

the constitutional Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election

Commissioner1 case to argue this position.

In reply to this, learned Government Pleader submits

that there are very serious charges which are raised against

1 1978 (2) SCR 272

the petitioner. He points out that apart from the original

charges, certain additional charges have also been issued

against the petitioner as can be seen from the Deputy

Commissioners proceedings dated 20.07.2021. On

27.08.2021, another set of additional charges were issued.

According to the learned Government Pleader, one allegation

is that he attempted to influence the higher Officials of the

department in order to stall the proceedings. There is also an

allegation that he has forged the signatures of an Officer. It is

also argued that the Assistant Executive Officer of Sri

Nookalamma Ammavari Temple, Anakapalli was appointed as

an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the

petitioner by proceedings dated 07.09.2020. However, the

petitioner did not attend the enquiry. Later, after the

additional charges were issued, the same Officer has been

appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated

07.08.2021. It is also asserted in the counter and the

submissions that the inquiry has to progress smoothly and

for this purpose, the suspension of the petitioner is

necessary. Learned Government Pleader also points out that

an apprehension is expressed that there is a possibility of

tampering of records/documents, influencing the witnesses

etc. It is also argued that it is not correct to state that the

enquiry or the show cause notice is based merely upon press

cuttings/press reports. The attention of this Court is drawn

to the suspension proceedings of 19.07.2021 wherein para 2

clearly states that on perusal of the official records available,

it is noticed that the complainant was involved in certain

activities. Lastly, it is submitted that no case is made out for

suspending the suspension proceedings.

This Court notices that the proceedings were issued on

19.07.2021 and the writ petition was signed and filed on

27.07.2021. As far as mala fides are concerned, this Court is

of the opinion as per the settled law that the quality of

pleading and evidence should be very high. A prima facie

examination of the affidavit filed does not show a case of mala

fides is made out. Apart from this, it is clear that an Enquiry

Officer has also been appointed on 07.08.2021. This Court

was hearing/deciding the matter in September/October,

2021.

In the opinion of this Court, a prima facie examination

of the material available does not show that the action is

actuated by mala fides. Suspension pending enquiry is not a

punishment. There is no delay and an Enquiry Officer is

already appointed.

As per the settled law, the scope of interference at the in

suspension cases and that too at the interlocutory stage is

extremely limited. The grounds raised do not make out a

case for interference. All the issues that are raised by the

petitioner are matters which can be raised before the Enquiry

Officer. Some of the allegations are very serious and an

apprehension is there that the petitioner may influence the

witnesses or tamper with the evidence. Considering the

gravity of the charges and this apprehension, no case is made

out for interference at this particular stage.

Therefore, this Court holds that no ground is made out

as of now to interfere with or to set aside the suspension.

The opinions expressed in this order are for the purpose

of the disposal of this application only. No comment is also

made on the merits of the matter.

This application is therefore dismissed.

___________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 06.10.2021 KLP