Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Constitution Of India vs 3 on 10 February, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.20209 of 2019
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, by the petitioner to issue a Writ, order or
direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus,
declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned
proceedings Vide No.946990/B1/2019, dated 29.08.2019 suspending
the petitioner from service, as illegal and arbitrary and
consequential direction to the respondents to quash the same.
2. Heard Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned
Government Pleader for Services-I.
3. Facts in nutshell :
The petitioner herein worked as an Assistant Public
Prosecutor, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri, Ananthapuram
District. While she was discharging her official duties at the Court of
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadipatri, basing on the complaint
given by one Kante Bala Peddulu on 04.07.2019, a criminal case
was registered against the petitioner in Cr.No.230 of 2019 of
Tadipatri Town P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 354, 323 r/w 34 IPC, Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Amendment Act 2015.
During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and
she was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, the petitioner
was enlarged on bail. As the petitioner was in judicial custody from
25.07.2019 to 08.08.2019 i.e., for a period of 15 days, the 2nd
respondent issued impugned proceedings Vide No.946990/B1/2019,
dated 29.08.2019 suspending the petitioner from services by
exercising powers under Rule 8(1) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned order of suspension, dated 29.08.2019, passed by the 2nd
respondent, did not specify the period of suspension. He further
contended that the period of suspension beyond six months cannot
be sustained, unless there is an extension by the competent
authority.
5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for
Services - I produced a copy of letter before this Court, which was
addressed by the office of the 2nd respondent to the Principal
Secretary to Government, Home Ministry vide
Lr.No.946990/B2/2020, dated 23.12.2020 requesting him to pass
necessary orders to reinstate the petitioner. In the said letter, the
2nd respondent also placed reliance on the Judgment of Division
Bench of this Court in P.Rajender Vs. Union of India and another1. He
2001 (5) ALD 290
further stated that though the said letter was addressed to the 1st
respondent as early as on 23.12.2020, the 1st respondent did not
choose to pass any orders till today.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this
case and keeping in view of the judgment of this Court stated Supra,
it is a fit case to direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders
on the letter addressed by the office of the 2nd respondent to the 1st
respondent.
7. In that view of the matter, the 1st respondent is
directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the letter
No.946990/B2/2020, dated 23.12.2020, addressed by the office of
the 2nd respondent, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date
of the receipt of a copy of this order positively, failing which, the 1st
respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service within
a period one (01) week thereafter.
8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. No costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
____________________
SRI K.SURESH REDDY,J
10th February,2022.
RPD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
Writ Petition No.20209 of 2019
Dated: 10.02.2022
RPD
