Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 340 (AP)

G. Jaya Vikram v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2019-11-26

K.VIJAYA LAKSHMI

body2019
ORDER : K. Vijaya Lakshmi, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings No. EE/GW/NDD/AB/WEC/955M, dated 1.10.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent placing the petitioner under suspension from 1.10.2019 alleging that he acted in violation of sub-rule (1)(b) of Rule 8 of A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's mother, viz., G. Mani Florence, was working as a telephone attender in the Irrigation Department at Narsapuram. After her demise, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Lascar on permanent basis on 20.10.1997. The role of Lascar involves operating the shutter, lock gates, and ensuring water supply to Ayakuts/canals. The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn.), Water Resources Department, after considering all relevant factors for promotion of Lock Superintendent, by proceedings No. Rc/ENC/I(1)/A/r)/27344172/2019-3, dated 29.8.2018 recommended the petitioner for the post of Lock Superintendent and directed the 2nd respondent to issue necessary orders and the same is still pending for consideration. 3. While so, the Hon'ble Minister for Housing issued a letter dated 9.9.2019 to the Superintending Engineer stating that the petitioner has taken political party membership in 2005 contrary to the rules of the service. He has also taken part in the election campaign for MPTC and ZPTC elections in 2014 on behalf of a TDP Political Party. The criminal case registered against the petitioner in that regard in CC No. 7 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, alleging violation of service conditions, was ended in acquittal on 16.11.2016. Basing on the letter issued by the Hon'ble Minister, the 2nd respondent issued show-cause notice dated 16.9.2019. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.9.2019, without considering the same the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 1.10.2019 suspending him on the allegation that the petitioner has involved in political activities while he was on duty. Main grievance of the petitioner is that as the criminal Court has already exonerated him, fresh enquiry cannot be conducted against him on the very same allegation. Hence the present writ petition. 4. Main grievance of the petitioner is that as the criminal Court has already exonerated him, fresh enquiry cannot be conducted against him on the very same allegation. Hence the present writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri G. Ramesh Babu, submits that as the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru has given a categorical finding to the effect that there is no evidence on record that the petitioner has participated in the election campaign, the respondent ought not to have initiated enquiry against the petitioner and suspended him. He further submits that the petitioner has put in 20 years of service without any allegations against him. 5. On the other hand learned Government Pleader Irrigation and Common Area Development appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal before the 1st respondent and without exhausting the said remedy the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 6. In CC No. 7 of 2016 by his order dated 16.11.2016 the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, observed as under: "Hence there is no evidence on record to show that the accused participated in election campaign on behalf of the TDP contesting candidate during 2014 general elections, restrained PW 1 and obstructed him in discharging his official duties, violating the election code. Therefore, in view of above foregoing discussion this Court opines that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 188, 353 and 506 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt." 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, as the petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition. However, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.