Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs N.Reddaiah, on 21 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT APPEAL No.709 of 2021
(Through physical mode)
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries Dept.,
Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, and another.
.. Appellants
Versus
N. Reddaiah S/o. N. Subbaiah,
Aged about 49 years,
Occ: Assistant Director of Fisheries (Under suspension),
R/o. Kadapa, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh.
.. Respondent
Counsel for the appellants : GP for Services-I
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. N. Bharat Babu
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 21.02.2022
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for
the appellants and Mr. N. Bharat Babu, learned counsel for the
respondent/writ petitioner.
2. This writ appeal would call in question the order dated 16.08.2021
passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2484 of 2021. By the said
order, the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner challenging the
order dated 06.10.2020, whereby he was placed under suspension, was
allowed setting aside the impugned order of suspension and issuing
appropriate directions for completion of departmental enquiry pending
against the respondent/writ petitioner.
3. A plain reading of the order of suspension dated 06.10.2020 would
indicate that the respondent/writ petitioner was placed under suspension
pending enquiry on the allegation that he was not attending any work in the
office of the Commissioner of Fisheries and proceeded on leave without
obtaining proper prior permission from the competent authority. Having
observed that the purpose of suspension is to facilitate smooth enquiry and
to prevent any tampering with the evidence, influencing witnesses or any
other conduct of similar nature, the learned single Judge has opined that in
the case on hand, it is clear that none of these eventualities are likely to
occur. The learned single Judge has further observed that there is no oral
evidence proposed to be introduced and the essential documents sought to
be relied upon are the letters given by the respondent/writ petitioner himself
which were referred to almost in the entire correspondence and that there is
no allegation that the respondent/writ petitioner would influence a witness
or try to impede the process of the enquiry. The learned single Judge,
therefore, held that there was no need to continue the respondent/writ
petitioner under suspension and, accordingly, set aside the order of
suspension.
4. On due consideration, we are in complete agreement with the view
taken by the learned single Judge. Given the nature of the allegation levelled
against the respondent/writ petitioner, it is clear that the outcome of the
enquiry would depend on official documents and there may not be any
chance of the respondent/writ petitioner tampering with the evidence or
influencing the witnesses, if any, proposed to be examined during the course
of enquiry.
5. In the above view of the matter, we see no ground to interfere with
the order passed by the learned single Judge. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we direct that the enquiry pending against the
respondent/writ petitioner shall be concluded within a period of three
months from today.
6. With the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
IBL
