Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 678 (AP)

Gundu Sivaji v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-07-25

K.VIJAYA LAKSHMI

body2022
JUDGMENT K. Vijaya Lakshmi, J. - This Writ Petition is filed questioning G.O. Rt. No. 45, Industries and Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 06.02.2019, issued by the first respondent and consequential proceedings dated 06.02.2019 issued by the second respondent, placing the petitioner under suspension and continuing him under suspension, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was promoted as Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and while he was working at Anakapalli, ACB authorities registered a crime against him alleging disproportionate of assets to the known sources of his income and he was placed under suspension with effect from 01.02.2019 vide impugned G.O. Rt. No. 45 dated 06.02.2019; petitioner is being continued under suspension contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 526, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008; questioning the impugned suspension order, petitioner filed WP No. 17532 of 2019 on the ground that the suspension order does not specify the period and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 13.02.2020 directing the respondents to review the suspension order and pass a fresh order within a period of four weeks; petitioner filed a Writ Appeal No. 207 of 2020 seeking his reinstatement and the said appeal was disposed of on 22.06.2020 directing the respondents to take a decision in accordance with law; consequently, the suspension was reviewed and orders were passed on 13.11.2021 continuing the suspension for three more months; after expiry of the said period, petitioner again submitted a representation on 23.05.2022 requesting reinstatement in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 526 dated 19.08.2008, but the said representation is still pending with the authority. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291 . 4. G.O. Ms. No. 526, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008, provides for review of suspension order. The operative portion of the said GO reads as follows. '2. After careful consideration, Government direct that, all concerned authorities to strictly implement the policy decision enunciated in the G.O.s read above. It is the responsibility of the competent authority to review each and every case of suspension as per the orders in-force and consider the reinstatement of the employees. The objective is to complete the disciplinary cases against the employees as expeditiously as possible and to punish the guilty. It is the responsibility of the competent authority to review each and every case of suspension as per the orders in-force and consider the reinstatement of the employees. The objective is to complete the disciplinary cases against the employees as expeditiously as possible and to punish the guilty. This is the specific policy of the Government for efficient and smooth functioning of the administration. 3. Accordingly, Government, hereby, direct that the employees who 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, Headed 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.' 5. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that suspension should not extend beyond the period of three months, if the charge sheet is not served on the delinquent employee and if charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of suspension. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order in WP No. 10982 of 2022, dated 30.06.2022, wherein this Court directed examination of the case of the petitioner therein in the light of G.O. Ms. No. 526 dated 19.08.2008 and take appropriate decision in the matter. 7. Learned Government Pleader has passed on the written instructions of the Director of Mines and Geology stating, inter alia, that based on the recommendations of the DG, ACB in their preliminary report and keeping in view of the recommendations of APVC, Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 77, III&C (Vigilance) Department, dated 11.09.2019 authorising the Investigating Officer, ACB to file an application for attachment of petitioner's properties worth of Rs. 2,07,01,041/-. It is also stated that charges were framed against the petitioner through G.O. Ms. No. 77, III&C (Vigilance) Department, dated 11.09.2019 authorising the Investigating Officer, ACB to file an application for attachment of petitioner's properties worth of Rs. 2,07,01,041/-. It is also stated that charges were framed against the petitioner through G.O. Ms. No. 54 dated 25.02.2022 for issuing permits to Sri B.M.J. Appa Rao leaseholder for rough stone and gravel over an extent of 28.940 hectares at Erukunaidupalem village, Subbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam district and that the Government has reviewed the suspension on 06.06.2022 and following decision was taken. 'During the review, it was noticed that Articles of Charges were served to the Charged officer (CO), Written Statement of Defence (WSD) received from the Charged Officer (CO) specific remarks are awaited from DM&G. As such, the DM&G is requested to furnish specific recommendations in this regards. Thus, the committee has decided to continue the Charged Officer (CO) under suspension for some more time.' 8. It is also stated that the second respondent has submitted specific remarks to the first respondent on 25.04.2022 and that the same is under examination by the first respondent. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of G.O. Ms. No. 526, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008 and the subsequent fact of framing of charges on 25.02.2022 and take appropriate decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible. 10. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.