Telangana High Court

E.Ram Mohan, vs The Executive Director, on 4 April, 2025

                                             1



                 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                                 W.P.No.20444 of 2024

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

"To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Order No.E2/114(16)/2024-ED:KRZ dated 19.7.2024 issued by the 1st respondent as being unjust, arbitrary and non-application of mind and consequently set aside the same and hold that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated to duty as Accounts Officer with all consequential benefits".

2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

Respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for

Services-I appearing for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

3. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Accounts

Officer in the Respondent Corporation, he was placed under

suspension vide Proceedings No.E2/114(16)/2024-ED:KRZ dated

19.7.2024 based on the news clipping published in Sakshi Newspaper

under the caption "RTC LO ADHIKARI CHETI VATAM" on 24.3.2024

and later in other newspapers i.e. Eenadu and Prabhata Vartha.

Thereafter, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner and the

petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge memo on

23.7.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

reasons mentioned in the impugned suspension order do not attract

the ingredients of Regulation No.18 of TGSRTC Employees (CC&A)

Regulations. It is stated that placing an employee under suspension is

almost a stigma and during the period of suspension, the incumbent

is not permitted to work and further he will be paid only subsistence

allowance, which is normally less than his salary and suspension will

have serious impact on future service of the employee. It is further

stated that the petitioner was already transferred from those places

and presently working in Ranga Reddy district and therefore there is

no scope of tampering of any evidence relating to the case, and

moreover it is burden on public exchequer and that enquiry can go by

posting the employee to elsewhere. Therefore, learned counsel for the

petitioner prays this Court to set aside the charge sheet/suspension

order dated 19.7.2024.

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

Respondent Corporation submits that the petitioner while working as

Assistant Manager (F) at AO/WL office, Warangal, a news item was

published in Saakshi Newspaper with a caption "RTC LO ADHIKARI

CHETIVATAM" and based on the vigilance report, the then Executive

Director, Karimnagar has nominated Smt.P.Swapna Kumari, Deputy

CAO/KR as the Enquiry Officer for conducting preliminary enquiry

into the allegations made in the vigilance report and based on the

preliminary enquiry report, a charge sheet bearing No.E2/114(16)/

2024-ED/KRZ dated 19.7.2024 was issued to the petitioner, duly

placing him under suspension vide impugned proceedings dated

19.7.2024, pending a detailed enquiry. It is further stated that the

petitioner being a frontline Supervisor of Accounts wing, had utterly

failed to exercise efficient control on his subordinate staff causing

abnormal delay in making payments pertains to private hire bills,

arrears bills, settlements of deceased employees and is responsible for

the irregularities occurred. It is also stated that the petitioner has to

verify and enquire with the clerks about the pending cases and see

that the cases are disposed of at the earliest, which he failed to do so.

Further, the petitioner has failed to follow the instructions of

Accounts Officer, Warangal with regard to pending cases and had not

taken initiative to monitor the clerks to clear the cases, which

resulted in long pendency of cases, which not only ruined the

reputation of the Organization, but also created unrest among the

employees. The petitioner is fully responsible for long pendency of

cases and for delayed payments. Further, to give ample opportunity

to the petitioner to prove his innocence, the respondents have already

ordered a detailed domestic enquiry. Therefore, learned Standing

Counsel prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. This Court has taken note of submissions of learned counsel for

the respective parties.

6. Basing on a news item published in Saakshi Newspaper with a

caption "RTC LO ADHIKARI CHETIVATAM", a preliminary enquiry

was conducted and based on the preliminary enquiry report, a charge

sheet bearing No.E2/114(16)/ 2024-ED/KRZ dated 19.7.2024 was

issued to the petitioner, duly placing him under suspension vide

impugned proceedings dated 19.7.2024, pending a detailed enquiry.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether this Court can interfere in disciplinary proceedings at the stage of charge sheet/charge memo and whether the petitioner's suspension from service is justified?

8. In matters of suspension, the exercise of extra-ordinary power of

judicial review vested with this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is very limited. Scope of consideration is limited

to the extent of examining the competence of the authority who places

an employee under suspension; arbitrary exercise of power; selective

suspension; allegations are frivolous/technical in nature; suspension

was wholly unwarranted; and there was no application of mind. In

matters of suspension, each case has to be examined in the factual

back ground of given case.

9. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 1,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-

cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.

16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter." (emphasis supplied)

(2006) 12 SCC 28

10. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others v. Prabhash

Chandra Mirdh 2 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."

(emphasis supplied)

11. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mahanty 3, wherein

it was held as follows:

"13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, 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 application of the mind by 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 inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win

2 (2012) 11 SCC 565 3 (1994) 4 SCC 126

over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry 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 inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge." (Emphasis supplied)

12. In Deputy Inspector General of Police v. R.S.Madhubabu 4,

the Division Bench of this Court held as under:

"18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of suspension passed by competent authority, particularly when the authorities have got the power under Rule 8 of the APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry. All the aspects have to be gone into by the fact finding authority and the enquiry will disclose the truth and otherwise of the allegations. Further, it is settled preposition of law that suspension pending enquiry cannot be interfered with and the Courts can direct only to conclude and complete the proceedings. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal instead of directing the authorities to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent within the time frame, exceeded its limit and over stepped its jurisdiction by directing the authorities that he should be transferred to a far off place, which is impermissible under law and unwarranted. As the task undertaken by the Tribunal is impermissible under law, the order passed by it suffers from various serious legal infirmities and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside."

13. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective parties

and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that based on

the preliminary enquiry report, petitioner was placed under

suspension vide impugned proceedings dated 19.7.2024 and a charge

sheet was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his

W.P.No.186 of 2009, dated 05.02.2009

explanation to the said charge memo. Not convinced by the

explanation offered by the petitioner, respondents have ordered a

detailed enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner and

the same is still pending. It is settled law that suspension pending

enquiry is not a punishment. Further, as the charges leveled against

the petitioner are grave in nature and as the enquiry is still in