Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 364 (AP)

V. Bhupathi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-04-01

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri M. Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Badra Naga Seshayya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III and Sri G. Srinivasulu Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Zilla Praja Parishad, Mandal Praja Parishad (in short ZPP, MPP) and Government Pleader for Services appearing for the 5th respondent. 2. This petition was filed for the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings No.674/2017 G4, dated 03.03.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and colourable exercise of powers and in violation of the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Subordinate Services Rules and consequently direct the respondents to treat the period of illegal suspension as on duty, duly paying all consequential benefits which are eligible by the petitioner and pass such other orders as deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 01.07.1986 in Zone-III in Guntur District. His services were regularized and he was promoted to the post of Panchayat Secretary Grade-II from the feeder category of Panchayat Secretary Grade-III on 11.08.2015 and was continuing on such. 4. The petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings vide proceedings Roc.No.674/2017 G4, dated 03.03.2017 by the District Collector, Guntur. 5. However, later on the District Collector, Guntur vide proceedings Roc.No.674/2017/G4, dated 22.01.2021 reinstated the petitioner in service. 6. Sri M.Chinappa Reddy submits that the order of suspension, dated 03.03.2017 passed by the District Collector is without jurisdiction, as the Collector is not the competent authority to suspend but it is the Commissioner, being the disciplinary authority of the petitioner is the competent authority. He further submits that any disciplinary proceeding was not initiated against the petitioner, although the order of suspension was passed in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding. Any charge memo was never served. Therefore, the petitioner’s period of suspension with effect from 03.03.2017 upto 22.01.2021 is liable to be treated as on duty however, any decision in that respect has not been taken by the competent authority. 7. Any charge memo was never served. Therefore, the petitioner’s period of suspension with effect from 03.03.2017 upto 22.01.2021 is liable to be treated as on duty however, any decision in that respect has not been taken by the competent authority. 7. Sri Badra Naga Seshayya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III submits that the petitioner holds the post of Executive Officer under the Gram Panchayat, Ramachandrapuram. Placing reliance on Section 2 (12) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as amended vide Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act 2002, and Rule 8 read with Rule 13 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1991, he submits that the District Collector is the competent authority to pass the order of suspension in the case of the petitioner. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly submits that there is nothing on record to show service of any charge memo to show initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and that the impugned order does not shows that any decision with respect to the period of suspension, to be treated on duty or otherwise, has been taken by the competent authority. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. The points for consideration are (1) whether the order of suspension passed by the District Collector is without jurisdiction? and (2) whether the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits for the period of suspension? 11. Section 2 (12) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Unamended) Act, 1994 (in short, the Act 1994) defines ‘Executive Authority’ as under:- “(12) “Executive Authority” means- (i) In the case of a gram panchayat or a group of gram panchayats having an executive officer, the executive officer and if there is no executive officer incharge, the Sarpanch of the gram panchaya; (ii) In the case of any other gram panchayat, the Sarpanch thereof;” 12. Section 2 (13) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Unamended) Act, 1994 (in short, the Act 1994) defines ‘Executive Officer’ as under:- “(13) “Executive Officer” means the Executive Officer-cum- Village Development Officer of a gram panchayat or a group of gram panchayats;” 13. The Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act 2002, (Act No.22 of 2002) amends the Act of 1994. Section 2 of the Amendment Act, 2002 reads as under :- “2. The Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act 2002, (Act No.22 of 2002) amends the Act of 1994. Section 2 of the Amendment Act, 2002 reads as under :- “2. In the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in Section 2,- (1) for clause (12), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:- “(12) ‘Executive Authority’ means the Panchayat Secretary appointed to each Gram Panchayat,” 14. Section 12 of the Amendment Act, 2002 provides as under:- “12. Through out the principal Act, for the words “Executive Officer”, the words “Executive Authority” and for the words “Village Development Officer”, the words “Executive Authority” shall be substituted.” 15. From the aforesaid legal provisions, it is evident that the ‘Executive Authority’ means the ‘Panchayat Secretary appointed to each Gram Panchayat’. The ‘Executive Officer’ as defined under Section 2 (13) was omitted and this expression ‘Executive Officer’ wherever occurs in the Act of 1994 has been substituted the word ‘Executive Authority’. 16. Rule 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1991 relating to suspension, provides as under :- “(8) (1) A member of a Service may be placed under suspension from service. (a) where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where in the opinion of the authority competent to place the Government servant under suspension, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or (c) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial: The proviso omitted, (G.O.Ms.No.417, GA (Ser,C) Dept., dt: 24-08-94) (d) A Government Servant may be placed under suspension from service even if the offence for which he was charged does not have bearing on the discharge of his official duties". 17. Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1991, therefore provides that a member of a service may be placed under suspension from service where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. 18. 17. Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1991, therefore provides that a member of a service may be placed under suspension from service where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. 18. Rule 13 of the Rules 1991, provides for the authorities competent to suspend the members of the state services, Rule 13 is being reproduced as under:- “Rule 13: Authorities competent to suspend members of State Service:- (13) The authority which may place under suspension under Rule 8 on members of the State Services mentioned in column (1) of the table below shall be the authority mentioned in column (2) thereof; The relevant part of the table is as under:- “TABLE Class of members of the state service Authority which may place under suspension under Rule 8 (1) (2) 1. Members of the State Judicial Service. 2. Mandal Revenue Officers (Tahsildars) (including Mandal Revenue Officers, Civil Supplies), Assistant Civil Supply Officers (Civil Supplies), Assistant Excise Superintendents (including Chemical Examiner) and Deputy Commercial Tax Officers. 2-A. Mandal Parishad Development Officers, Divisional Panchayat Officers, Extension Officers (Panchayats), Extension Officers (Rural Development), Executive Officers (Gram Panchayats) High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad Commissioners concerned. Collectors and District Magistrate.” 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Subordinate Service Rules, 2010 (in short, the Rules 2010) to contend that the Commissioner is the disciplinary authority. 20. Rule 13 of the Rules 2010 is reproduced as under:- “13. Disciplinary Authority :- (1) Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural employment shall be the disciplinary authority for the categories of Panchayat Secretaries Grade I and II. (2) The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) shall be the disciplinary authority for the categories of Panchayat Secretaries Grade III and IV.” 21. Above Rule 13 of the Rules 2010 shows that the Commissioner is the Disciplinary Authority for the categories of Panchayat Secretaries Grade I and II. However, Rule 13 does not provide that the Executive Officer (Gram Panchayat) can be placed under suspension only by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commissioner. Above Rule 13 of the Rules 2010 shows that the Commissioner is the Disciplinary Authority for the categories of Panchayat Secretaries Grade I and II. However, Rule 13 does not provide that the Executive Officer (Gram Panchayat) can be placed under suspension only by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commissioner. Any Rule in Rules 2010 has not been placed before the Court with respect to the suspension of the Panchayat Secretaries Grade I and II so as to demonstrate that the Service Rules 2010 relating to Panchayat Raj provides anything contrary to Rule 8 read with Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1991 to exclude their applicability in view of any specific service rules to the contrary. 22. From the consideration of the legal provisions of Rule 8 read with Rule 13 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1991 on the one hand and Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Subordinate Service Rules, 2010, this Court is of the considered view that a distinction had been made between the Disciplinary Authority and the Competent Authority to pass order of suspension. The Disciplinary Authority, who can impose a punishment on the delinquent officer whereas the Competent Authority can place the delinquent officer under suspension. The Disciplinary Authority is under Rule 13 of the Rules 2010 competent to impose punishment and the competent authority to place under suspension is under Rule 8 read with Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1991. 23. The Executive Officers (Gram Panchayats) therefore may be placed under suspension by the District Collector/District Magistrate, under Rule 8 read with Rule 13 of the Rules 1991. 24. This Court is of the considered view that under Rule 8 read with Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1991, the petitioner’s suspension by the Collector/District Magistrate is not without authority of law. 25. I do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector/District Magistrate, Guntur was not the competent authority to suspend the petitioner. 26. 25. I do not find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector/District Magistrate, Guntur was not the competent authority to suspend the petitioner. 26. However, this Court is of the considered view that once the petitioner was reinstated and any disciplinary proceeding was not initiated against the petitioner, the competent authority/Collector of the District, while passing the order of reinstatement, or thereafter, should have taken decision with respect to the petitioner’s suspension period with effect from 03.03.2017 upto 21.01.2021 i.e. the date immediately preceding the date of reinstatement. 27. Accordingly, on point No.1, it is held that the Collector/District Magistrate is the Competent Authority to place the Executive Officers/Executive Authorities/Panchayat Secretaries under suspension. 28. On point No.2, it is held that the decision should have been taken by the Competent Authority. 29. In view of the aforesaid, without interfering with the order of suspension on the ground urged, being not tenable, the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation before the Collector, Guntur, within a period of three (03) weeks from today, along with the copy of this order, raising his claim with respect to the suspension period, upon which the District Collector, Guntur/respondent No.3, shall take a reasoned decision in accordance with law, within a further period of two (02) months from the date of submission of the representation. The petitioner shall be duly communicated of such decision. If the decision is taken that the petitioner is entitled for certain benefits for the period of suspension, those benefits shall be released in petitioner’s favour within a further period of one month. 30. It is clarified that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioner either way. 31. The petition is disposed of finally with the above directions. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.