Telangana High Court
D.Jagadeeshwara Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 14 October, 2022
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.38420 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition for the
following relief:
"to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India declaring the Proceedings of
the 3rd respondent bearing Rc.No.DCO/A1/SM1/
0014/2022, dated 24.02.2022 placing the petitioner
continuously under suspension, which is contrary to
the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court
in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of
India, reported in 2015 [7] SCC 291, and in case of
State of Tamil Nadu Vs Promod Kumar, IPS reported
in 2018 SCC Online SC 1979, and consequentially to
set aside proceedings of the 3rd respondent bearing
Rc.No. DCO/A1/SM1/0014/2022, dated:24.02.2022
and to direct the respondents to reinstate the
petitioner into service w.e.f.24.02.2022 with all
consequential benefits."
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd
respondent passed the impugned proceedings bearing Rc.No.
DCO/A1/SM1/0014/2022, dated: 24.02.2022 placing the
petitioner under suspension and that the petitioner made his
representations dated 10.06.2022 and 11.07.2022 addressed to
the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service on
humanitarian grounds and post the petitioner as Tahsildar in
nearby Mandals of Khammam District in view of the petitioner's
health issues.
4. Perused the record.
5. The Apex Court in its judgment reported in 2015 [7] SCC
291 in Ajay Kumar Choudary Vs Union of India observed as
follows;
"We, therefore, direct that the currency of a
suspension order should not extend beyond three
months if within this period the Memorandum of
Charges/Charge sheet is not served on the
delinquent officer/employee if the Memorandum of
charges/charge sheet is served a reasoned order
must be passed for the extension of the suspension.
As in the case in hand, the government is free to
transfer the concerned person to any department in
any of its offices within or outside the state so as to
sever any local or personal contact that he may
have and which he may misuse for obstructing the
investigation against him. The government may also
prohibit him from contacting any person, or
handling records and documents till the stage of his
having to prepare his defense. We think this will
adequately safeguard the universally recognized
principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy
trial and shall also preserve the interest of the
government in the prosecution. We recognize that
previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant
to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and
to set time limits to their duration. However, the
imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has
not been discussed in prior case law, and would not
be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore,
the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission
that pending a criminal investigation departmental
proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands
superseded in view of the stand adopted by us."
6. The same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in the
case of State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary
to Government V Pramod Kumar, IPS and another (2018
SCC online SC 1979) vide judgment of the Apex Court dated
21.08.2018.
7. As per G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03.1994 issued by the
General Administration (Services-C) Department which pertains
to review of orders of suspension against the Government
Servants, it is very clearly stipulated at Clause 3(i) that an
order of suspension against a Government Servant shall be
reviewed at the end of every six months. The said existing order
had been reiterated vide G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008
issued by the General Administration (Services-C) Department.
As borne on record, the same has not been done in the
present case, though the order of suspension is dated
24.02.2022. Taking into consideration the petitioner's health
condition and also the fact that the petitioner had not been paid
any subsistence allowance since February 2022 though the
representations of the petitioner dated 10.06.2022 and
11.07.2022 have been acknowledged by the office of the 3rd
respondent, this Court opines that the 3rd respondent should be
directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated
10.06.2022 and 11.07.2022 and pass appropriate orders in
accordance to law as per the observations of the Apex Court
referred to and discussed above.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondents to consider the representations made by the
petitioner dated 10.06.2022 and 11.07.2022 in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.86 General Administration (Ser.C) Department,
dated 08.03.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.526 General Administration
(Ser.C) Department, dated 19.08.2008, and pass appropriate
orders, in accordance to law, duly taking into consideration the
observations and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudary Vs
Union of India reported in 2015(7) SCC 291 and in case of
State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to
Government V Pramod Kumar, IPS and another (2018 SCC
online SC 1979) within a period of four (04) weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order duly communicating the
decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as
to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
14.10.2022
KGK/VSU
