B.Lal Singh, S/O Late Bhagya, vs The State Of Telangana, Rept. By ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3467 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                WRIT PETITION No.20657 of 2017
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the Order No.28688/CE

(MHA)/E3/GHMC/2017 dated 06.05.2017, issued by the respondent

No.2, whereunder the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is in

violation of Articles of 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and

contrary to the instructions issued by the Government from time to

time. The petitioner was appointed as Executive Engineer in the A.P.

State Cooperative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited, Hyderabad on

10.06.1996. He was transferred to the respondent No.2/Greater

Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) on 22.12.2000 along with

8 others on deputation basis. After joining GHMC, he was promoted as

Deputy Executive Engineer on 14.07.2016. During monsoon season in

2016, the GHMC took up a plan to complete de-silting of SW Drains

well before onset of monsoon to avoid water logging on the roads,

flooding of low lying areas and traffic problems in GHMC limits.

In order to carry out the de-silting work efficiently and to avoid

inconvenience to public and criticism from all fronts, certain

instructions were issued by the GHMC vide Circular No.GHMC/Engg/CE

(M)/TA-II/K6/2016 dated 25.02.2016. Pursuant to the orders issued

by the Commissioner, GHMC, the concerned Executive Engineers and

S.Es of GHMC, have entered into contacts with certain Contractors in

GHMC for de-silting of Nalas in Central Zone. As per para 7 of the

circular dated 25.02.2016, the weighment at identified and designated

weigh bridge by Executive Engineer only shall be taken and the Deputy

Commissioner has to arrange any one departmental personnel on shift

basis for monitoring at the weigh bridge.

3. For the year 2016-17, the Executive Engineers have not

identified any weigh bridge and the Deputy Commissioner has also not

arranged any person for monitoring weighment at weigh bridge.

The quantity of de-silting material has to be measured by the

concerned Assistant Engineer in Cubic meter/Tonnes only.

The transportation of de-silting material by any mode is irrelevant,

as there is no designated weigh bridge and no designated person at

the weigh bridge. Further, the concerned AE/AEE cannot accompany

each and every carted vehicle up to the dumping yard and as per the

circular dated 25.02.2016, it is not the duty of the AE/AEE. The Quality

Control Cell, GHMC also inspected the work prior to the execution and

after completion of the work, and they have submitted their reports

satisfactorily. The concerned Zonal Commissioner, the SEs and EEs

have also periodically inspected and monitored the progress of

de-silting work and no irregularities have been noticed.

The contractors completed the work as per the agreements and

submitted the weigh bridge bills for payments. The Audit party of

Central Zone, GHMC, scrutinized bills and raised certain objections

stating that some of the vehicles used for carting of silt are fake and

fabricated as the vehicle numbers mentioned in the weigh bridge bills

are non-transport vehicles, Motor Cars, Auto Rickshaws on which silt

cannot be transported. It is stated that some of the contractors while

submitting the weigh bridge bills for payments have submitted certain

fake and fabricated bills in the offices of the concerned EE in Central

Zone and also used non-transportation vehicle numbers for claiming

bills for transportation of de-silted material. The objections raised by

the Audit came in local newspapers.

4. Based on a complaint given by the Superintendent Engineer

Central Zone, GHMC, Khairatabad dated 12.04.2017, a case in

Cr.No.66 of 2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section

34 IPC was registered against the contractors with Central Crime

Station, Hyderabad and investigation was taken up. The petitioner and

others were summoned to CCS and the police arrested all of them.

The petitioner was also shown as one of the accused. The petitioner

was released on station bail on the same day.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that based on written

information given by some lower officials, the then in-charge SE,

who joined in the Central Zone recently at that time and who was

aware of the instructions issued by GHMC and without even

ascertaining the correct facts at the time of the execution of the work

and without verifying the records, gave a complaint dated 12.04.2017.

It is stated that the petitioner is no way responsible for shifting of

dumping year. If there was any lapse, it was due to procedure

irregularities in not taking weighment of de-silting material at dumping

place also for the reason beyond the control of officials. But not

illegality was committed by the petitioner or other AEs in the Central

Zone.

6. It is submitted that to the memo dated 13.04.2017, issued by

the Chief Engineer, explanation was submitted by the petitioner and

others. The police conducted preliminary investigation against 23 AEs

and 12 DEs but action was taken only against 13 AEs, who attended

the CCS Police Station. Thereafter, 13 AEs including the petitioner

were placed under suspension pending enquiry. The petitioner

submitted that he was made a scapegoat, as the only allegation made

in the impugned suspension order is that he was negligent in

discharging his duties for submitting the bills to the Audit without any

proper scrutiny and not following the instructions dated 25.02.2016.

It is further submitted that GHMC has indulged in selective suspension

by placing only 13 AEs under suspension when the same is contrary to

the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. SUKHENDAR REDDI v.

STATE OF AP1. The authorities ought to have taken action against the

contractors but illegally placed the petitioner under suspension.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in

WP.No.19763 of 2017, filed by similarly placed persons, this Court

directed the petitioner therein to be continued in service, however,

giving liberty to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings

against the petitioner.

8. In the present case, impugned suspension order was stayed by

this Court vide order dated 05.07.2017 in WPMP.No.25317 of 2017.

The order is still in force. The respondents have not chosen to file their

counter. The averments in the writ affidavit that there is selective

suspension of few of the employees including the petitioner remained

unrebutted. The learned Government Pleader fairly conceded that

WP.No.19763 of 2017 was disposed of granting relief to the similarly

placed person and the order is not appealed by the government.

Thus, selective suspension resorted to by the respondent No.2 is

arbitrary, discriminative and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

of India (see para 7 of K. SUKHENDAR REDDI's (supra).

9. In view of the above and also in the light of the fact that interim

order dated 05.07.2017 is still in operation all through, this Court is of

the considered opinion that the petitioner shall be continued in service.

(1999) 6 SCC 257

However, the respondents are granted liberty to initiate disciplinary

proceedings in case they chose to proceed against the petitioner.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. Pending

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J November 15, 2021 DSK