Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R. Srinivasa Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 11 September, 2024
APHC010205812024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 10336/2024
Between:
R. Srinivasa Rao, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
2. SUDHIR MATTEGUNTA
The Court made the following:
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"... to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
Respondents more particularly Respondent no 2 in passing the
Suspension Order vide proceedings No.556/BP/2023
556/BP/2023
dt.24.04.2024 placing the petitioner under suspension of
service as being illegal arbitrary unjust without application of
mind and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil
Services CCA Rules, 1991 and further violative of Articles 14
19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being
grossly against the Principles of Natural Justice and to
consequently set aside/quash the Suspension Order
dt.24.04.2024 and direct the Respondent No.2 consequently
direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner into his
present post with all consequential benefits ..."
2. a) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was
appointed as the Production Manager and working against the post
of Recovery Officer in Head Office of A.P. Differently Abled and
Senior Citizens Assistance Corporation (APDASCAC). By
proceedings in Rc.No.556/BP/2023-2 dated 12.10.2023 (Ex.P7), the
petitioner was deputed to the office of the District Manager,
APDASCAC, NTR District, to assist the District Manager, in the
work of construction of a new building in the land of TCPC,
Vijayawada under the control of the District Manager on working
arrangement.
b) Memo No.556/BP/2023 dated 16.11.2023 (Ex.P6) was
issued by the Managing Director calling upon the petitioner to
submit the progress report on the construction of a new building in
the land of TCPC, Vijayawada within two days. The petitioner
submitted the explanation dated 24.11.2023 (Ex.P5). It was stated
that records of the construction of the new building in the land of
TCPC, Vijayawada were not handed over to him by the District
Manager and hence, he could not do anything. It was further stated
that the District Manager, in turn, could not get the records of the
new building in the land of TCPC, Vijayawada from the Project
Officer, TCPC, Vijayawada.
c) The Managing Director issued another Memo
No.657/2021/Estt, dated 18.01.2024 (Ex.P4) pointing out that the
petitioner unnecessarily involved the Project Officer, TCPC,
Vijayawada in his explanation, which was not concerned with the
progress report, as he only has to assist the District Manager, NTR
District in construction work and thereby directed to submit the
progress report on construction of new building in the land of TCPC,
Vijayawada, within 3 days. Petitioner submitted an explanation
dated 14.02.2024 (Ex.P3). While explaining the reason for
mentioning the name of the Project Officer, he submitted that he
could not submit any progress report on the construction work, as
the District Manager did not give any instructions or files.
d) The Managing Director issued Memo No.657/2021/Estt,
dated 18.04.2024 (Ex.P2) directing the District Manager,
APDASCAC to take over the charge of Project Officer, TCPC,
Vijayawada, within one week from Sri K.Venkata Ratnam, as per the
orders issued without further delay.
e) Be that as it may, the petitioner was placed under
suspension by proceedings No.556/BP/2023 dated 24.04.2024
(Ex.P1) in the exercise of powers conferred under Rule 8 (1) of the
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1991 (for short "Rules 1991"). Aggrieved by the same, the
above writ petition is filed.
3. Heard Ms.Abhigna Mandava, learned counsel representing
learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M.Sudhir, learned standing
counsel for 2nd respondent, and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Services for 1st respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner was deputed to assist the District Manager, APDASCAC
in the work of construction of a new building in the land of TCPC,
Vijayawada. She would submit that a perusal of Exs.P6, P4 & P2, it
is clear that the authority without application of mind placed the
petitioner under suspension for extraneous reasons. She would also
submit that no circumstances are warranted to place the petitioner
under suspension and the suspension pending inquiry cannot be
resorted, without any reasonable ground in an arbitrary manner.
5. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent
would submit that the petitioner failed to submit the progress report
in pursuance of Exs.P6 and P4 memos, and thus, the petitioner
failed to perform duties and hence, it amounts to dereliction of
duties under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 (for short "Rules 1964"). He would submit that the 2nd
respondent, on examination of the entire material, came to the
conclusion that petitioner should be placed under suspension
because of dereliction of duty. He would also submit that the writ
petition itself is not maintainable.
6. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the proceedings impugned issued by the 2 nd
respondent suffer from non-application of mind? and
Whether the suspension is warranted in the facts of
the case?
7. Before proceedings further this Court deems it appropriate to
extract Rule 8 of the Rules, which reads thus:
"(8) (1) A member of a Service may be placed under
suspension from service.
(a) where disciplinary proceeding against him is
contemplated or is pending, or
(b) where in the opinion of the authority competent to
place the Government servant under suspension, he has
engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the
security of the State; or
(c) ... ... where a case against him in respect of any
criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry, or trial
(d) A Government Servant may be placed under
suspension from service even if the offence for which he
was charged does not have bearing on the discharge of his
official duties".
8. As seen from Clause (a) of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 8, an
employee may be suspended from the service in case of
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The word 'may' employed
in the Rule gives discretion to the authority.
9. It is pertinent to mention that placing an employee under
suspension attracts serious consequences in the service. It is
almost a stigma on the Government servant. The effect of the order
of suspension is that though the employee continues to be a
member, he is not permitted to work. During the period of
suspension, he will be paid only subsistence allowance which is
normally less than his salary. Thus, suspension has a serious
impact on the future service of the employee. Therefore, strict
adherence to Rules is mandatory.
10. In State of Orissa Vs. Bimala Kumar Mohanty1, the Hon'ble
Apex Court held thus:
"12. ... 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 the application of
the 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 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 enquiry
without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the
delinquent officer to scuttle the enquiry or investigation or to
win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the
AIR 1994 SC 2296
opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation
or enquiry 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 creates on the
service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in
service pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry or
investigation would be another thing if the action is by mala
fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be
a step in aid to the ultimate result. The authority also in mind a
public interest of the impact of the delinquents continuance in
office while facing departmental enquiry or trial of a criminal
charge."
11. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an
arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as a
vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a
case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent
employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave
misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of
superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case
against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank,
removal or dismissal from service. The authority should also take
into account all the 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.
(Union of India & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal2)
2013 0 Supreme(SC) 1061 : 2013 14 Scale 323
12. Case at hand, the petitioner was deputed to the office of the
District Manager, APDASCAC, NTR District to assist the District
Manager in the construction work of the new building in the land of
TCPC, Vijayawada under the control of the District Manager. A
memo dated 16.11.2023 was issued calling upon the petitioner to
submit a progress report on the construction of the new building.
The petitioner in his reply dated 24.11.2023 stated that the District
Manager did not hand over records relating to the construction of a
new building to him. He also further mentioned that even the District
Manager did not get the records from the Project Officer, TCPC,
Vijayawada. A month thereafter, another Memo dated 18.01.2024
was issued pointing out that the petitioner unnecessarily involved
the Project Officer, TCPC, Vijayawada in his explanation and further
directed the petitioner to submit a progress report on the
construction of the new building. The petitioner immediately
submitted an explanation stating that he could not submit the
progress report as the District Manager did not give any instructions
or files in that regard. By proceedings dated 18.04.2024, the
Managing Director directed the District Manager to take over the
charge of Project Officer, TCPC, Vijayawada from Sri K.Venkata
Ratnam without any further delay. Surprisingly, the petitioner was
suspended on 24.04.2024 until the conclusion of disciplinary
proceedings due to dereliction of duty.
13. Normally, this Court while exercising judicial review will not
interfere with the order of suspension passed by the authority under
Rule 8 (1) of the Rules 1991. However, in the case at hand, in the
suspension order, it was mentioned that the petitioner was placed
under suspension due to dereliction of duty.
14. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, in
Paragraph-5, it was contended that the petitioner is drawing a salary
of Rs.1,79,943/- per month and not attending for any sort of work
wherever he was posted and not even approaching the superior
officers regarding the work to the executed. It was further stated
that the petitioner, who is the Production Manager, TCPC,
Vijayawada was also issued orders by the Head Office to work at
Braille Press, Guntur, but the individual approached the High Court
and got the deputation orders canceled and continued in TCPC,
Vijayawada, even though there is no production work to do in the
unit. The writ petitioner is in the habit of putting petitions and
complaints against the employees and claiming all sorts of
information about the employees under the Right to Information Act
very often, to make them afraid of him. The petitioner made
complaints against two retired employees on 30.07.2019 to stop
payment of retirement benefits and also addressed a letter to the
Government on 20.06.2023 to withhold the proposals sent by the
Managing Director regarding payment of retirement benefits to the
said employees. It was also stated that the petitioner after his
posting as Recovery Officer in Head Officer, vide proceedings dated
14.10.2021, did not even visit a single office of a single loan
beneficiary of the Corporation and failed to recover the loan amount.
15. Thus, the counter affidavit deposed by the 2 nd respondent
would manifest that the intention of the 2nd respondent to place the
petitioner under suspension. If the petitioner committed illegal acts
as alleged, nothing deprived the authority from initiating steps as per
the Rules. However, no steps were initiated then. The petitioner
was placed under suspension, probably, other than the reasons
mentioned in the suspension order i.e. dereliction of duty.
16. Learned counsel for 2nd respondent while placing reliance
upon U.P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others Vs.
Sanjiv Rajan 3 , would contend that it is not open to the Court to
interfere in case of suspension as it is in the exclusive domain of the
competent authority, who can always review its order of suspension.
17. In Sanjiv Rajan's case (supra-3), the employee, who is the
Cashier of the Agricultural Market Committee, was involved in the
defalcation of funds. When the employee was suspended, the
suspension order was quashed on the ground that some other
suspended officers had been allowed to join the service. In
pursuance of an investigation into the defalcation of funds, upon
preliminary inquiry, it was found that defalcation was done either
with his active involvement or with his connivance. Thereafter, again
the employee was placed under suspension. The High Court stayed
the operation of suspension on the ground that it was not competent
authority to pass the order of suspension a second time. In those
facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court interfered with the
order and made certain observations. Hence, the said judgment is
not applicable to the facts of this case.
18. Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent relied on the
judgment in Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise
1993 Supp (2) SCC 483
Department Vs. L.Srinivasan 4 . It is also a case of suspension,
where charges were quashed on the grounds of delay in initiation.
However, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside
the order of the tribunal and it was observed that it would take a
long time to detect embezzlement and fabrication of false records,
which should be done in secrecy. However, the facts in the present
case are different and hence the judgment has no application.
19. Learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent relied on
judgment in Allahabad Bank and another Vs. Deepak Kumar
Bhola 5 , which relates to suspension pending criminal trial for an
offense involving moral turpitude. Thus, the ratio laid down in the
case will not apply to the facts of this case.
20. As discussed supra, except for mentioning dereliction of duty,
no reason is forthcoming from the proceedings impugned (Ex.P1) to
place the petitioner under suspension. The averments in the counter
affidavit of the 2nd respondent would demonstrate that the petitioner
was placed under suspension because of certain other alleged
events, which is not the cause for suspension as mentioned in
Ex.P1. It is not the case of the 2 nd respondent that if the petitioner is
not placed under suspension, the petitioner either misuses power
vested in the office or tampers the records etc. In the absence of
any such reason mules a valid reason, keeping the petitioner under
suspension pending inquiry amounts to non-application of mind and
also misuse of powers vested with the office of the 2nd respondent.
Apart from the suspension of an employee until further orders is
(1996) 3 SCC 157
(1997) 4 SCC 1
also contrary to G.O.Ms.No.22, General Administration (Ser-C)
Department 29.02.2024. The suspension needs to be reviewed by
the end of every four months and an employee cannot be placed
under suspension beyond a year.
21. Given the discussion supra, the order of suspension is liable
to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide No.556/BP/2023
dated 24.04.2024 are set aside.
However, this order will not preclude the respondent
authorities from proceeding with the inquiry, if so desired, as per the
Rules. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
PVD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 10336/2024
Date : 11.09.2024
PVD
