Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 654 (AP)

Subramanayam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-07-18

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2022
JUDGMENT Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- 'to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing G.O. Rt. No. 1341, dated 05/12/2018 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by placing the Petitioner under suspension, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into services with all full backwages and also with continuity of service and all attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders.......' 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Zilla Panchayat Officer (Group-I service) and discharging his duties without any remarks from any quarter. Thereafter, he was appointed as District Panchayat Officer and was promoted as Chief Executive Officer, ZPP, Nellore District., while so, the Government has issued G.O. Rt No. 1341, dated 05.12.2018 placing the petitioner under suspension alleging that he is not attending his duties from 8.10.2018 without obtaining any prior permission and he has collected huge sums of money from different people under the guise of providing employment; from December 2018 onwards he was being continued in suspension without even issuing any charge memo. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents denying all the material allegations made in the petition and contended that the Government after examining the matter, has initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner herein, for misappropriating the Government fund pertaining to Seigniorage Grant to a tune of Rs. 88,58,000/- vide G.O. Rt. No. 1403, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Vigilance I) Department, dated 24.12.2018. Simultaneously another proposal has been received from the 2nd respondent based on the report of 3rd respondent vide Rc CC. Spl. 687/2018, dated 01.11.2018 regarding the misconduct committed by the petitioner while working as Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Nellore District i.e., unauthorized absence to the duty and collecting bribe from the unemployed youth in the guise of providing employment etc. Spl. 687/2018, dated 01.11.2018 regarding the misconduct committed by the petitioner while working as Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Nellore District i.e., unauthorized absence to the duty and collecting bribe from the unemployed youth in the guise of providing employment etc. after examining the same, the Government vide the impugned proceedings dated 05.12.2018 had decided to place the petitioner under suspension and also vide government Memo No. 8343/Vig.IV/A2/2018 dated 05.12.2018 entrusted the matter to Vigilance Department for enquiry and to submit report. It is further stated that the petitioner made representation to the Government on 4.8.2020 and the Government vide Memo No. 1602/20/2018-Vig.IV(A2)-1, dated 04.09.2020 has reviewed the suspension order against the petitioner. However, considering the gravity of the allegations and as the petitioner is evading receiving the suspension order and charge memo, the government has decided to continue the petitioner under suspension. Further, the case of the petitioner will be reviewed from time to time as required under APCS (CCA) Rules and a decision will be taken on continuation of the Charged Officer under suspension. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition and while denying the allegations made in the counter contended that the charge memos issued by the respondents are nothing to do with the present suspension order and instead of justifying their action of issuing any Charge Memo in respect to the present issue and the allegations covered in suspension orders dated 05.12.2018 the respondents are purposefully misleading this Court by way of quoting earlier Charge Memos. It is further stated that since the G.O. Rt. No. 617 dated 24.09.2019 which is filed along with counter is totally different and the same is not pertaining to the allegations covered in suspension order dated 5.12.2018. In spite of the lapse of two years period, the respondents have not issued any Charge Memo to the petitioner and hence, the action of the respondents is in clear violation of G.O. Ms. No. 526 dated 19.08.2020. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per G.O. Ms. No. 526, dated 19.08.2020, the petitioner is entitled to reinstate into service with all consequential benefits and hence requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. No. 526 dated 19.08.2020. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per G.O. Ms. No. 526, dated 19.08.2020, the petitioner is entitled to reinstate into service with all consequential benefits and hence requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents argued that the petitioner without receiving the copy of suspension order and Charge Memo has approached this Court stating that no charges have been framed against him so far, is absolutely false. He further contended that the case of petitioner will be reviewed from time to time as required under APCS (CCA) Rules and a decision will be taken on continuation of the Charged Officer under suspension and hence there are no merits in the present writ petition and it is not maintainable under law. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of K. Sukhendar Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1999 Law Suit (SC) 406, wherein it was held that, 'no disciplinary proceedings initiated suspended from the service--subsequently dropped the disciplinary proceedings-but renewed the suspension as criminal investigation is pending and anticipating that lodging of criminal charge. All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule 3 - 1st para part a member can be placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings--Part II can be placed under suspension who is involved in a criminal case - The continuation of suspension under Part II of Rule 3 - The criminal investigation is pending more than 2 and half year - The suspension cannot be continued particularly in a situation where other officers who are not under suspension may also be found involved - Appeal allowed - directed to reinstate with arrears of salary.' 9. This Court observed that as per G.O. Ms. No. 526, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2020, the Government was held in para-3, reads as under: '3. Accordingly, the Government, hereby, direct that the employees are under suspension for a period exceeding two years shall be reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary cases/criminal cases against them. This Court observed that as per G.O. Ms. No. 526, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2020, the Government was held in para-3, reads as under: '3. Accordingly, the Government, hereby, direct that the employees are under suspension for a period exceeding two years shall be reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary cases/criminal cases against them. However, in exceptional cases, for example, where the charged officers are not cooperating for completion of investigation/inquiry or when the inquiry/investigation could not be completed due to pendency of litigation, a Committee headed by the Secretary of the administrative Department, Head of the Department concerned and an official from the Anti Corruption Bureau (where the cases are emanated from Anti Corruption Bureau Investigation), shall review the orders of suspension against the employees who are continued under suspension well before completion of two years of suspension and take a decision to continue such employees under suspension beyond two years, duly recording the reasons for such a decision.' 10. In view of the foregoing reasons, in view of the decision of K. Sukhendar Reddy's case (supra) and in view of G.O. Ms. No. 526, dated 19.08.2020, this Court deems fit to allow the writ petition while setting aside the impugned G.O. Rt. No. 1341, dated 05.12.2018. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned G.O. Rt. No. 1341, dated 05.12.2018. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all full back wages upto date, if any, already paid to him, leaving it open to the respondents to consider the feasibility of placing the petitioner under suspension, if and when a charge sheet is filed by the respondents. Further, the petitioner is entitled for continuity of service with all attendant benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.