Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 562 (TS)

B. Pochaiah v. State Of Telangana,

2020-07-16

P.NAVEEN RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT P.Naveen Rao, J. - Petitioner is working as Junior Assistant in Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Komuravelli village and mandal, Siddipet district. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging proceedings No.S/M/DK/80/2020 dated 10.6.2020 suspending him from service and continuing him under suspension. He seeks consequential direction to reinstate him with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that merely based on media reporting alleging dumping of laddu prasadam, disciplinary action ought not to have been initiated without verifying the facts. He would submit that as seen from the panchanama recorded on 20.3.2020, higher officials have taken a decision to distribute all the laddus made by them and accordingly, laddus were distributed. While distributing the laddus, it was noticed that few laddus were infected with fungus or were broke into small pieces, therefore they could not be distributed. Since lockdown was imposed on the intervening night of 23/24th March, 2020 and immediately entire premises was sealed, no immediate steps could be taken to dump those laddus. As soon as the temple was reopened, those laddus were transported to dumping yard. He would submit that there was no occasion for the petitioner to inform the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, as he was not available. He would submit that even assuming that what was done by him was erroneous and that higher officials ought to have been informed, on a trivial allegation, there was no justification to place petitioner under suspension. There is no scope to tamper of evidence. There is no allegation of misappropriation or financial embezzlement. Therefore, suspension ought not have been resorted to. The disciplinary authority got swayed by reporting in the electronic media and the newspapers and without applying his mind, resorted to suspension. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not even looked into. By placing reliance on the decision in G.Govindu Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (2017) 3 ALD 755 he would submit that the competent authority cannot resort to suspension in a routine manner, without application of mind and for trivial allegations and more so when there is no public interest involved. At the most the petitioner could have been transferred. He would further submit that on consideration of his explanation, the suspension ought to have been reviewed and there is no justification to further continue the petitioner under suspension. 3. At the most the petitioner could have been transferred. He would further submit that on consideration of his explanation, the suspension ought to have been reviewed and there is no justification to further continue the petitioner under suspension. 3. Facts on record would disclose that on 20.3.2020 Commissioner/2nd respondent issued directions to distribute the laddu prasadam already made to the devotes and villagers free of costs. On 20.3.2020 a resolution was passed deciding to distribute 23293 laddus and accordingly on 23.3.2020 laddus were distributed. Consequent to the lockdown imposed from the midnight of 23.3.2020 due to pandemic, the temple was closed and it was reopened only on 6.6.2020. On 7.6.2020, it has come to the notice of the Executive Officer that petitioner dumped 5000 laddus on the night of 6.6.2020 in the dumping yard and the same was reported in the electronic media on 7.6.2020. Petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. On 9.6.2020 petitioner claimed to have submitted his explanation. On 10.6.2020 proceedings were issued by the Executive Officer suspending the petitioner from service and also framed six charges and called for his explanation. Petitioner claimed to have submitted his explanation on 16.6.2020. 4. From the material on record, it is noticed that having noticed from the reporting in the electronic media on dumping of huge quantity of laddu prasadam in the dumping yard, Executive Officer called for explanation of the petitioner. The show cause notice alleges that petitioner reported distribution of entire stock, whereas, illegally petitioner kept huge quantity of laddu stock and later dumped in the dumping yard. In response to the said notice, in the explanation dated 9.6.2020, petitioner admits dumping of laddu prasadam on 6.6.2020. However, he tried to justify his action of not reporting to the Executive Officer by stating that on 23.3.2020 in the presence of all the concerned, laddus were distributed and immediately thereafter lockdown was imposed, therefore it was felt not necessary to inform higher officials. 5. Soon after reporting of the incident in the electronic media, show cause notice was issued and explanation was called. In the explanation, petitioner admits factum of not informing the Executive Officer about dumping of laddu prasadam in dumping yard. 5. Soon after reporting of the incident in the electronic media, show cause notice was issued and explanation was called. In the explanation, petitioner admits factum of not informing the Executive Officer about dumping of laddu prasadam in dumping yard. From the order of suspension, it appears that disciplinary authority took note of the explanation offered by the petitioner, but not satisfied with the same, placed him under suspension and simultaneously chargers were also framed. As matter is at the initial stage of taking disciplinary action and since charges are already framed, it cannot be said that disciplinary authority ought to have assigned detailed reasons in support of the decision to suspend. That would have amounted to pre-judging the issue forming part of the charges leveled against petitioner. Further, the order of suspension need not assign elaborate reasons. It is seen from the order that disciplinary authority was of the prima facie view that petitioner committed grave irregularities in discharging his legitimate duties as in-charge of Prasadam section. It is not in dispute that Executive officer is competent to place the petitioner under suspension. 6. Whether the action of petitioner in dumping the laddu prasadam in the dumping yard without informing the competent authority is justified or it was a bona fide action, is a matter for consideration in the departmental proceedings and no opinion can be expressed at this stage. Further, it cannot be said that disciplinary authority simply reacted to reporting in electronic media and suspended the petitioner, since it gave show-cause notice, afforded opportunity to petitioner to explain and having found, prima facie, illegality was committed by the petitioner, resorted to suspending him from service. 7. The order of suspension is dated 10.6.2020 and on the same day by the same proceedings charge memo was drawn. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.6.2020 and two weeks thereafter, this writ petition is filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is inaction after the explanation was offered by the petitioner and there is inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings warranting interference by this Court. 8. As per Rule 6 (1) of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 (Rules, 1987), competent authority can suspend, when grave allegations are made or suspension is necessary in public interest. 8. As per Rule 6 (1) of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 (Rules, 1987), competent authority can suspend, when grave allegations are made or suspension is necessary in public interest. Proviso appended to Rule 6 (1) [1] of the Rules, 1987 fixes the time limit of six months to complete the investigation and to take action and fixes time limit of six months for suspension to be in operation. Thus, rules are not violated in suspending the petitioner. 9. The decision relied by learned counsel for petitioner in G.Govindu (supra) rests on facts in that case. As per paragraph 42 of the judgment, it is seen that in the reports submitted by the competent authorities on the alleged incident of accident where an old lady died by coming under the wheels of the bus driven by petitioner therein, they have stated that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner therein. Therefore, Court was of the prima facie opinion that when the decision to suspend was taken the reports suggested that petitioner therein was not negligent and thus the authority erred in resorting to suspension ignoring those reports. Whereas, in the instant case, petitioner admits of dumping of laddu prasadam but seeks to justify his action. 10. Further, it cannot be said that issue of dumping of prasadam without consent of competent authority and without following the due procedure is a small issue and taking action is not in the larger public interest. Lot of sanctity is attached to prasadam offered to deity and is very sacred to the devotees. Improper use or throwing the prasadam in a dumping yard, particularly the staff of the temple, certainly affect the sentiments of the devotees and the villagers. Therefore, it cannot be said that suspension of an employee of the temple, who is alleged to have indulged in dumping the prasadam in dumping yard, is not in public interest. Prima facie, it cannot be said that dumping of laddu prasadam in dumping yard of a religious institution would not amount to grave dereliction of duties. 11. However, it is made clear that these aspects are considered only to test the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on validity of the suspension order, and there is no expression of opinion on merits. 11. However, it is made clear that these aspects are considered only to test the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on validity of the suspension order, and there is no expression of opinion on merits. All aspects are left open to be agitated in the departmental proceedings and before the higher authorities. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. 1 6. (1) As office-holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment may be ordered to be under suspension from office or service by the trustee, the Executive Officer, the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or the Regional Joint Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges where such suspension is necessary in public interest : Provided that where the investigation has not been completed and the action proposed to be taken in regard to him has not been completed within a period of six months from the date of suspension, the fact shall be reported to the Government, Commissioner, Regional Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be for orders. The period of suspension shall not, however, exceed six months without the previous orders of the Government in the case of suspension ordered by the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner and of the Commissioner in other cases. Provided further that during the period of suspension he shall be paid, subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules in Chapter-VIII of the Fundamental Rule and Subsidiary Rules of the Andhra Pradesh Government.