Chintaluru Santana Rama ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4409 AP

              HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                      MAIN CASE:      W.P.No.8963 of 2022

                               PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. DATE                                  ORDER                                  OFFICE
No.                                                                               NOTE
06  22.07.2022        KVL,J

                                          IA No.1 of 2022
                        This writ     petition is   filed   questioning   the
                      impugned proceedings dated 29.11.2021 suspending
                      the petitioner from service with effect from
                      24.05.2021 in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of A.P.
                      Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal)
                      Rules, 1991 (for short 'the Rules of 1991'), as
                      illegal and arbitrary.

                        Case of the petitioner is that, he was appointed
                      as Ward Amenities Secretary (Grade-II) in the year
                      2019; on 09.02.2021, the 4th respondent issued

proceedings deputing the petitioner to A.P. Housing Corporation; a criminal case was registered against him on 09.05.2021 and he was remanded to judicial custody; the Deputy Executive Engineer (H), APSHC, Guntur issued proceedings dated 28.07.2021 relieving the petitioner from service; subsequently, petitioner was suspended vide proceedings dated 29.11.2021 in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1991.

Counter-affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent disputing the contentions in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is passed by the non competent authority and that even subsistence allowance is not being paid to the petitioner. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Khem Chand vs. Union of India1' for the proposition

AIR 1963 SC 687 that suspended government employee is entitled for subsistence allowance. He also relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in 'Registrar Cooperative Society vs. M Elango2' for the same proposition.

On the other hand, Mr. K. Sreedhar Murthy, learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in 'Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Zakir Hussain3' and submits that where a person is an employee of Corporation and not a government servant, he will not get such protection under Section 311 of the Constitution of India.

As seen from the pleadings, petitioner was appointed on permanent basis and he was suspended in terms of the Rules of 1991 and when the petitioner is suspended in accordance with the Rules of 1991, he is also entitled for subsistence allowance. Fundamental Rule 53 also deals with the aspect of suspension, allowances etc., according to the said rule, petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance.

In view of the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to grant subsistence allowance to the petitioner in accordance with the rules pending disposal of the writ petition.

WP No.8963 of 2022 Post the writ petition for final hearing in the usual course.

_______ KVL, J

BSS

2021(1) CTC 465

(2005) 7 SCC 447