Telangana High Court

Chilla Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 27 September, 2024

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                    WRIT PETITION No.8142 of 2024
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"....to declare the impugned Suspension proceedings No.A3/VS/803/ 2024, dated 09.03.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory without any application of mind and also in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and further declare the same as bad in law and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner into service as a Tahsildar and with all consequential benefits...."

2) Heard Sri C.Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I

appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

initially the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on

05.02.1996, on compassionate grounds, and thereafter he was

promoted as MRI-II, MRI-I, Deputy Tahsildar respectively, posted

and worked at different places. Lastly, he was promoted as

Tahsildar in the year 2018 and posted at Karimnagar Town and

subsequently on 15.02.2024 he was allotted, transferred and

posted as Tahsildar, Gajwel, Siddipet District. While so, the

impugned proceedings dated 09.03.2024 were issued by the third

respondent alleging that the petitioner was involved in a criminal

case viz., crime No.92/2024 of Kothapalli Police Station registered

for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 409, 420

and 120B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and remanded to

judicial custody for a period of 14 days, and thereby placed the

petitioner under suspension from the date of his detention

i.e.07.03.2024 as per Rule 8(2)(a) of Telangana Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short 'CCA

Rules, 1991'). Learned counsel has contended that in respect of

the issue relating to 2022, the criminal complaint was registered in

the year 2024 i.e. on 07.03.2024, by which time, the petitioner was

already transferred and allotted to Gajwel, Siddipet District, on

15.02.2024 and as on today no charge sheet is filed in the criminal

case. Therefore, there is no necessity to place the petitioner under

suspension, in view of his transfer to Gajwel. Learned counsel has

further contended that the averments of the complaint are purely

civil in nature, the lis is between two groups of a family that too the

issue relates to the year 2022 and further the complainant group

also filed civil suit vide O.S. No.70 of 2023. Therefore, the learned

counsel seeks indulgence of this Court and pass appropriate orders

in the writ petition. In support of his submissions, learned counsel

has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Ajay Kumar Choudary v. Union of India 1.

1 (2015) 7 SCC 291

4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for

the respondents has submitted that based on the information

received from the Circle Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural,

through letter in C.No.93/Cr-Ktpl/2024, dated 07.03.2024, stating

that a case has been registered at Kothapalli Police Station of

Karimnagar District, in crime No.92/2024 for the offence

punishable under Sections 467, 468, 47, 409, 420 and 120-B read

with 34 IPC, against the petitioner and other accused on the

ground that the petitioner, in collusion with others, had created a

false registered document in respect of the land in survey No.29

situated at Rekurthi Village, Kothapalli Mandal, Karimnagar

District, by misusing his official powers and in connection with the

same he was arrested on 07.03.2024 and remanded to judicial

custody for a period of fourteen days. Further, as the charge

against the petitioner is serious in nature, placing the petitioner

under suspension is an absolute necessity in the interest of public.

Therefore, the third respondent, who is the competent authority, is

justified in placing the petitioner under suspension under Rule

8(2)(a) of CCA Rules, 1991 for a period of three months in terms of

G.O.Ms.No.533, General Administration (Ser.C) Dept., Dated

06.12.1997. Hence, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and

prayed to dismiss the same. Reliance has been placed on the

common order dated 11.08.2017 passed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court in W.P. Nos.22530 of 2017 & batch.

5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by

respective parties.

6) Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Tahsildar and he

was placed under suspension for the incident took place while he

was working as Tahsildar at Kothapalli, in the year 2022, however,

he was thereafter transferred to the present place of work at

Gajwel, Siddipet, on 15.0.2024. Besides the same, as per

G.O.Ms.No.533, dated 06.12.1997, the Collector is empowered to

suspend the Tahsildars for a period of three months only. Here, it

is pertinent to note that as per CCA Rules, 1991, enunciated under

G.O.Ms.No.487, dated 14.09.1992, the competent authority to

suspend the Tahsildar is the Commissioner concerned. In this

regard, it is relevant to refer to Rule 13 of the Telangana Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, relevant

portion of which, reads as under:

"The authority which may place under suspension under rule 8 members of the State Services mentioned in column (1) of the table below shall be the authority mentioned in column (2) thereof:

2. Mandal Revenue Officers Commissioners (Tahsildars) (including Mandal Revenue concerned Officers, Civil Supplies), Assistant Civil Supply Officers (Civil Supplies), Assistant Excise Superintendents (including Chemical Examiner) and Deputy Commercial Tax Officers.

"2-A. Mandal Parishdad Development Collectors and Officers, Divisional Panchayat Officers, District Magistrate. Extension Officers (Panchayats), Extension Officers (Rural Development), Executive Officers (Gram Panchayats)

The District Collector are empowered to place the Mandal Revenue Officers

(Tahsildar Cadre) under suspension for a period of three months and to obtain the

approval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, if the suspension period has to be

extended beyond the period of three months."

7) In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner is holding the

post of Tahsildar. Therefore, as per the CCCA Rules, 1991, the

Commissioner is the competent authority to place the petitioner

under suspension and as per G.O.Ms.No.533, dated 06.12.1997,

the District Collectors are empowered to place the MROs under

suspension only for a period of three months and approval of the

Commissioner of Land Revenue has to be obtained if the

suspension period has to be extended beyond the period of three

months. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the

petitioner was placed under suspension on 09.03.2024 and

admittedly as on today the second respondent has not approved

the suspension of the petitioner, which is mandatory for continuing