Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 129 (AP)

Machavarapu Ramesh Babu v. State Of A. P.

2020-02-17

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2020
JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in placing the petitioner under indefinite suspension as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice etc. 2. This Court has heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the standing counsel for respondent No.3, who is the essential answering respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been suspended from his job on the basis of a frivolous complaint given by an unknown person without application of mind. He also points out that in the impugned proceedings dated 10.07.2019, by which the petitioner was kept under suspension, there is a reference to an order passed by the District Collector on 01.07.2019 itself by which the District Collector decided to place the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, learned counsel submits that this order of suspension has been passed without application of mind and at the instance of a higher authority. Relying upon State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, (1989) AIR SC 997, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that an authority cannot be permitted its decision to be influenced by superiors. He argues that the discretion must be exercised by the Officer concerned and not at somebody's behest. He also submits that till the date of filing of the writ petition, no charge memo has been issued nor was any Enquiry Officer, was appointed. Relying upon the settled law on the subject, learned counsel for the petitioner states that indefinite suspension is not contemplated under law and that every disciplinary enquiry should be completed in a very strict time bound manner. He, therefore, submits that the suspension of the petitioner should be revoked. 4. Counsel for the 3rd respondent has relied upon the counter affidavit filed and argues in line thereof. He submits that in the case on hand, there were very serious allegations against the petitioner of harassing a woman at her work place. The matter was taken up by the National Commission for Woman also. Learned counsel also points out that the preliminary enquiry was conducted and the lady who was harassed has also appeared before the Preliminary Enquiry Officer. The matter was taken up by the National Commission for Woman also. Learned counsel also points out that the preliminary enquiry was conducted and the lady who was harassed has also appeared before the Preliminary Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel also submits that in view of the seriousness of the allegations and as the preliminary enquiry found that there is a case, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Learned counsel submits that the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP) in which the petitioner was working as an Assistant Project Manner has its own terms and conditions for employment. He points out that as per Rule lause 8.2 of the said terms and conditions, an employee can be placed under suspension when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending. He points out that an order of suspension as per Rule 8.2 (iv)(a) shall continue to remain in force till it is modified or reversed by the Authority. He also states that Rule 8.2 (v) states that the order of review should be reviewed at every six months. Lastly, learned standing counsel also submits that against the order of suspension, an appeal is provided to the Appellate Authority in terms of Rule 8.9 of the service conditions. Without prejudice to the preliminary contention that the suspension is valid, the standing counsel also submits that an Enquiry Officer was already appointed in September, 2019 and that the enquiry is in progress. Therefore, he contends that revoking the suspension is not called for. 5. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents notices that there is a serious allegation of the petitioner harassing a woman employee. The matter was also taken up by the National Commission for Woman. Thereafter, in the preliminary enquiry that was conducted, some prima facie material was found. The documents filed along with the writ petition do show that the concerned Officer found some material to continue the proceedings against the petitioner. This Court is not expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the matter. While it is true that the general law is that the suspension cannot be kept pending and that an enquiry should be completed within a stipulated time, still the petitioner also is bound by the conditions of his employment. Admittedly, he is working as Assistant Project Manager in SERP. The terms and conditions of the employment permit the suspension. While it is true that the general law is that the suspension cannot be kept pending and that an enquiry should be completed within a stipulated time, still the petitioner also is bound by the conditions of his employment. Admittedly, he is working as Assistant Project Manager in SERP. The terms and conditions of the employment permit the suspension. Rule 8.2 (v)(a) also talks of the suspension being in force till it is modified or revoked. Provision for review of order is also given. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the said terms and conditions of employment of the petitioner in SERP would prevail in this case. Nevertheless, keeping in view of the fact that the an Enquiry Officer is appointed and basing on the case law, which states that such enquiry should be disposed of quickly, this Court is of the opinion that instead of revoking the suspension, an order balancing the interest of both the parties should be passed. 7. Therefore, since the Enquiry Officer is already appointed, the Enquiry Officer is directed to proceed with the enquiry on a priority and complete the same within a span of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the petitioner and the respondents are directed to cooperate in the enquiry and ensure its smooth completion. 8. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.