Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 234 (AP)

State of Andhra Pradesh rep. v. S. Sai Ram Singh

2011-03-15

GHULAM MOHAMMED, K.G.SHANKAR

body2011
ORDER (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J.) This writ petition is filed assailing the validity and legality of the order, dated 16.04.2010, passed in O.A.No.1811 of 2010 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 21.03.2010, placing the fist respondent herein under suspension is set aside and further, directed that the first respondent herein shall be reinstated from suspension within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: - Admittedly, the Andhra Pradesh State Government granted mining lease to M/s Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited (for short 'OMC Ltd') for an extent of 25.98 and 39.5 hectares in Obulapuram forest compartment No.695, 68.5 hectares in Malpangudi forest compartment Nos.697 and 698. While so, the State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.723, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 25.11.2009, suspending the mining operation of the said Company and others basing on the proceedings of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad, dated 06.11.2009 and 20.11.2009 and the letter of Sri M.K. Jiwarajka, Member of Central Empowered Committee, dated 23.11.2009. The said G.O. was assailed by OMC Ltd by filing W.P.No.2590l of 2009 and M/s Anantapur Mining Corporation by filing W.P.No.26083 of 2009. These two WPs were heard by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of AP and by a common order, dated 26.02.2010, the WPs were allowed and the impugned G.O.Rt.No.723, dated 25.11.2009 therein, was set aside to the extent of petitioners therein. Thereupon, M/s OMC Ltd addressed a letter to the first respondent herein who is the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ananthapur on 03.03.2010, to issue dispatch permits in view of the judgment of the High Court. On the said application, the first respondent herein endorsed in the following manner on the same day: "Received the letter from Lessee Company along with the order of hon'ble High Court of AP., Hyderabad in W.P.Nos. 25910 and 26083 of 2009, dated 26.02.2010 and through internet web site HCIL/HC.AP.Nic.in/http/ verdict. The G.O.Rt.No.723, dated 25.11.2009 is set aside in the verdict. Circular memo No.28668/P/2005, dated27.05.2006 of the DM&G., A.P., Hyderabad. Dishonouring of Court orders is amount to contempt of the Court. Hence obeying the orders." On the same day permits were issued for lifting 70 MTs of iron ore. The G.O.Rt.No.723, dated 25.11.2009 is set aside in the verdict. Circular memo No.28668/P/2005, dated27.05.2006 of the DM&G., A.P., Hyderabad. Dishonouring of Court orders is amount to contempt of the Court. Hence obeying the orders." On the same day permits were issued for lifting 70 MTs of iron ore. On 17.03.2010 the first respondent herein in his letter No.371/M1/02, addressed a letter to the Director of Mines and Geology stating that in view of the judgment of the High Court of AP., permits were issued and the list of permits issued is enclosed to the statement. On 18.03.2010, the Director of Mines and Geology informed the Secretary to Government of A.P., Industries and Commerce Department to the effect that he contacted the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Ananthapur and ascertained that M/s OMC Ltd., and M/s AMC Ltd., have commenced mining operations in all mines granted to them on 27.02.20io and are presently operating the mines. Then, a note was put up on 21.03.2010 stating that the State Government filed SLP before the Supreme Court on 11.03.2010 and the case was posted to 22.03.2010 and the Supreme Court granted status-quo and meanwhile the first respondent herein without following the procedure and referring the matter to the Government as required issued permits from 03.03.2010 to the mining companies. Hence, for violating the prescribed procedure in issue of permits, the first respondent herein was kept under suspension under G.O.Rt.No.188, Industries and Commerce (M.III) Department, dated 21.03.2010, which was impugned before the Tribunal. 3. Learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioners-State contended that the first respondent before issuing the dispatch permits ought to have referred the matter to the Government but he did not do so and acted arbitrarily and hence, his action cannot be countenanced and when such is the case, the Tribunal exceeded its limit and over-stepped its jurisdiction while interfering with the suspension of the first respondent pending enquiry into the matter. He further contended that the Tribunal is not empowered to go into the merits of the case when the first respondent is placed under suspension pending enquiry into the matter and hence, prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. He has also drawn out attention to the judgment of this Court in Dy. He further contended that the Tribunal is not empowered to go into the merits of the case when the first respondent is placed under suspension pending enquiry into the matter and hence, prayed this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. He has also drawn out attention to the judgment of this Court in Dy. Inspector General of Police, Kurnool v. R.S. Madhubabu (1) 2009 (4) ALT 530 (D.B.) = 2009 (4) ALD 87 (D.B), wherein at para-18, it is observed as under: - "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. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the first respondent was placed under suspension only on the ground that he acted hastily in issuing the dispatch permits to the mining Companies; that the first respondent has issued the dispatch permits in discharge of his legal duty and as such, he cannot be said to be acted hastily or illegally and that the impugned order passed by Tribunal does not warrant interference by this Court. 5. We have perused the entire relevant material available on record and also given our earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. 6. 5. We have perused the entire relevant material available on record and also given our earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the Tribunal has exceeded its limit and over-stepped its jurisdiction and committed any jurisdictional error? 7. Admittedly, the first respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the matter. In such an event, the Tribunal ought not to have gone into the merits of the allegations levelled against the first respondent. The enquiry into the matter reveals the truth or otherwise of the allegations. It is for the fact finding authority to go into the details of the case and decide the case as per the enquiry report and then, act in accordance with law. 8. In all the matters of suspension, it is impermissible for the Tribunal or for the Court to go into the merits of the allegations levelled against the delinquent employee when enquiry was ordered by the competent authority into the said allegations. It is the domain of the disciplinary authority or the realm of the disciplinary authority to consider the ultimate report of the enquiry officer and then, proceed further in accordance with law. 9. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has exceeded its limit and has over-stepped its jurisdiction and ordered reinstatement of the first respondent into service when, admittedly, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the allegations levelled against him, particularly in issuing dispatch permits to the companies without referring the matter to the Government. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 16.04.2010, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.1811 of 2010 is hereby set aside. However, the writ petitioners are directed to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the first respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.