Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 657 (AP)

P. Vasantha Lakshmi v. State of Telangana

2015-08-28

ANIS, NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

body2015
Judgment Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Section Officer in the Office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Government of Telangana, has been placed under suspension, by a proceeding of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, dated 25.06.2014. The case of the petitioner is that she is no way concerned with the gross irregularities alleged to have been committed and she has unnecessarily been languishing under suspension for no fault of her. Therefore, she approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, by instituting O.A. No. 3075 of 2015. While admitting the said O.A., the Tribunal has rejected the interim relief prayed for by the applicant/petitioner seeking suspension of the operation of the order of placing her under suspension. Obviously, the Tribunal has rejected the interim relief for the reason that the allegations surfaced revealed that 2671 bogus ration cards were generated in the Circle and 42,279 Kgs. of subsidized rice per month was misused for the period from 01.01.2014 up to 08.06.2014. This is apart from distribution of other subsidized essential commodities under the Public Distribution System and also under a social welfare scheme named as ‘Amma Hastham’. One cannot wish away the necessity to keep the subsidies to the barest essential minimum. The State, by subsidizing the essential commodities, is intending to secure the welfare of the citizens, particularly those who are falling below the poverty line. By subsidizing the essential commodities, the socialistic concept to which the State is wedded is sought to be sub-served, but at the same time, if the subsidies are routed in a wrong direction, it is also equally essential for the State to correct the mechanism. Generation of bogus cards is one of the breeding grounds for the subsidies to get into the pockets of undesirable elements. In fact, the State of Telangana has initiated a wonderful and commendable drive by undertaking house-hold survey across the breadth and length of the State on a single day. It was essentially intended to secure the enumeration of the population of the State and to ensure that the subsidies essentially under the ‘Public Distribution System’ reach the most-deserving. In fact, the State of Telangana has initiated a wonderful and commendable drive by undertaking house-hold survey across the breadth and length of the State on a single day. It was essentially intended to secure the enumeration of the population of the State and to ensure that the subsidies essentially under the ‘Public Distribution System’ reach the most-deserving. By undertaking such a drive, the State must have truly endeavoured to ensure that those unfortunate persons, who could not be covered earlier by the subsidies because of various factors, are also now granted the necessary ration cards to enable them to draw the subsidies, but essentially, the survey has also brought-forth as to how undeserving candidates are deriving essential subsidies. It is therefore, imperative for the State of Telangana to eliminate and weed out all bogus cards and claims, so that huge financial outlay in the form of subsidies gets saved. Saving of such money is bound to be routed towards another public-interest-oriented programme. Therefore, we have not found any serious infirmity or legal objection for a government servant to be placed under suspension, if serious allegations of attributable misconduct surfaced, but at the same time, it was not the end of the story. The government cannot place an employee under suspension and forget about his existence thereafter. It is essential that an employee, who has been placed under suspension, should be subjected to the disciplinary control as expeditiously as is possible and at any rate, without further loss of time. Disciplinary proceedings would get initiated upon drawing a charge-sheet. Generally, the purpose for which a government servant is placed under suspension is to ensure that the material that is available can be collected easily in the absence of such an employee. This apart, if there is anyone, who might be having information necessary to deal with the conduct of the employee concerned, such information would become easy to be collected in his absence in the office. Further, by placing an employee under suspension, the various records and administrative files available in the office are denied access to him, so that no further improvements are made therein clandestinely. For achieving the aforementioned purposes, a reasonable time limit of six months would have been sufficient unless the charge itself is such a grave one that it was taking enormous time to unearth its depths. For achieving the aforementioned purposes, a reasonable time limit of six months would have been sufficient unless the charge itself is such a grave one that it was taking enormous time to unearth its depths. Hence, rule itself requires the order of suspension to be reviewed at the end of the six months’ period. A review is not intended to be an empty formality. It is intended to make the competent authority apply his mind as to what factors have hindered in conducting the inquiry against the officer concerned. If the officer is not at fault, the order of suspension should be revoked. Placing an employee under suspension thrusts an obligation on the part of the employer to pay for him subsistence allowance. For the first six months, the quantum of subsistence allowance is 50% of his wages and during this period, no work can be extracted from him. Therefore, payment of subsistence allowance also works as an additional burden on the State’s financial resources. Hence, it is highly essential that while reviewing the order of suspension, at the end of the six-month period, these factors also must be borne- in-mind by the competent authority and a reasoned order for continuation of the suspension should be passed. Every effort must be made for reinstating the employee, as six-month period is a reasonable period for one to gather all that incriminating material against the individual employee. For reasons not attributable to the employee, if the delay is occasioned, that would be a case, which deserves reinstatement of the employee. In case the employer or the competent authority feels it not safe to reinstate the employee in the very same office, where he was found working earlier, it is always open to such an authority to transfer such an employee to any other office or any other place to avoid any such possibility. We are confident that the respondents will bear these aspects in mind and place their counter-affidavit before the Tribunal within a month from today and thereafter, the Tribunal will consider taking up the O.A. itself and dispose it of on merits. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand disposed of.