Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 218 (AP)

M. Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-02-09

G.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner (appearing through video conference) and Smt. M. Hemalatha, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Smt. M. Hemalatha, Ld. Asst. Government Pleader for Services-III has passed across the table the proceedings of the Secretary to Government issued to the Writ Petitioner dtd. 25/1/2024, which is the Charge Memo, indicating about the Articles of Charge framed against the Writ Petitioner. 3. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is as under: "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing G.O.Rt.No.118, Labour, Factories, Boilers and Insurance Medical Services (Lab.I) Department dtd. 25/1/2024 where under the petitioner was suspended by the 1st respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently to set aside the said G.O., in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 3. This Court has noticed at Para No.3 of the Impugned Order G.O.Rt.No.118 Labour Factories Boilers and Insurance Medical Services (Lab.1) Department, dtd. 25/1/2024 (Ex.P1) that in pursuance of a Report of the Commissioner of Labour, the Writ Petitioner was suspended by the Secretary to the Government (Labour, Factories Boilers and Insurance Medical Services (Lab.I) Department vide G.O.Rt.No.118 dtd. 25/1/2024 by exercise of powers conferred by Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. Para No.3 of the said proceeding is usefully extracted hereunder: "3. And whereas the Government after careful consideration of report of Commissioner of Labour and having due regard to the circumstances of the case is satisfied that it is necessary to place Sri M. Rama Rao, Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam, under suspension." 4. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner is performing quasi-judicial functions and therefore, the least that the Official Respondents could have done is to put the Petitioner on Notice before passing the Impugned Order. Smt. M. Hemalatha, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader has furnished across the table the 'Charge Memo' issued to the Writ Petitioner which is dtd. 25/1/2024. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would respond that the Charge Memo, though is dtd. Smt. M. Hemalatha, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader has furnished across the table the 'Charge Memo' issued to the Writ Petitioner which is dtd. 25/1/2024. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would respond that the Charge Memo, though is dtd. 25/1/2024, the same has been supplied to the Writ Petitioner only on 31/1/2024, whereas, the Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition on 30/1/2024 and the impugned Order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner ought to have been put on Notice before suspension. 5. In R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India, (1964) 5 SCR 431 , the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression 'disciplinary matters' will also include 'suspension' by way of punishment as well as 'suspension' pending enquiry. The purpose of suspension pending enquiry is generally to facilitate the departmental enquiry and to ensure that in the course of enquiry, a public servant is not in a position to misuse his authority. Such a 'suspension', therefore, is a matter which relates to 'disciplinary matters'. 6. In P.L. Shah Vs. Union of India and Another: (1989) 1 SCC 546 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Para No.6, held as under: 6. An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. Such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in the public interest and also in the interest of the government servant concerned. ..................................... ................................................................................." 7. In Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna Vs State of A.P rep., by its Principal Secretary, TR and B Department and Ors.: 2016 (3) ALT 727 (DB), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had dealt with similar issue in a thread bear manner and by considering and analysing several authorities on this issue, it has noted three kinds of 'suspensions' which are known to law. It is noted by the Hon'ble Division Bench that: (i) a public servant may be suspended as a mode of punishment; (ii) he may be suspended during the pendency of an enquiry against him, if the order appointing him, or the statutory provisions governing his service, provide for such suspension; and (iii) lastly, an employee may merely be forbidden from discharging his duties during the pendency of an enquiry against him which act is also called suspension (See Paras 11 to 15 in 2016 (3) ALT 727 (D.B.)). 8. The Hon'ble Division Bench, having taken note of the facts involved in the case before it, has noted that the 'suspension' is not a substantive punishment, and is an interim order pending enquiry/criminal proceedings (Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd., v. Shobrati Khan: AIR 1959 SC 923 ). The Hon'ble Division Bench held that suspension is not a punishment but only forbids or disables the petitioner from discharging duties of his office or the post held by him. In other words, it is to restrain him from availing further opportunities of perpetrating the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among members of the service that dereliction of duty would pay and the offending employee can get away pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses, or affording the delinquent the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. (State of Orissa v. Bhimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126 ). 9. In the present case, even though the Articles of Charge are prepared on 25/1/2024, they were probably served on the Writ Petitioner on 31/1/2024. The Rule 8 of APCS (CCA), Rules, 1991 empowers the Competent Authority to place a delinquent employee under suspension. The Rule does not envisage issuance of prior notice before suspension. For an Executive Officer, even if he is discharging quasi-judicial functions, the law does not give him any additional protection under law for the purpose of issuance of advance notice prior to 'suspension'. The Rule does not envisage issuance of prior notice before suspension. For an Executive Officer, even if he is discharging quasi-judicial functions, the law does not give him any additional protection under law for the purpose of issuance of advance notice prior to 'suspension'. Therefore, if the submission of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner is accepted to the effect that the Disciplinary Authority is obligated to issue advance notice before placing the delinquent officer under suspension, this Court is of the considered opinion that it may defeat the very object and purpose of suspension. The purpose of suspension, as noticed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, would not only be completely defeated but also frustrated, if the Authority is required to issue advance notice before suspension. This apart, a suspension of this nature, as in the present case, is not an Order of punishment, since the punishment would only ensue as a consequence of report by the Enquiry Officer after the conclusion of the enquiry itself. 10. The facts and circumstances in the present case would clearly indicate that the Writ Petitioner was placed under suspension vide Proceedings dtd. 25/1/2024 (Ex.P.1) and the Writ Petition was filed on 30/1/2024 itself. Since the Articles of Charge, though not filed along with the material papers, was supplied across the table by Smt. M. Hemalatha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, for which the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, has offered an explanation that the Articles of Charge bearing G.O.Rt.No.120 dtd. 25/1/2024 was, in fact, served on the Writ Petitioner only on a day after filing the present Writ Petition. 11. Be that as it may, since the Articles of Charge is supplied to the Court, this Court had the occasion to sift through the Articles of Charge. Though this Court has perused the Articles of Charge, this Court is not inclined to examine the same or make any comments. For, any such comments, if made, may either prejudice the interest of the Writ Petitioner herein or may affect the disciplinary proceedings. 12. Having taken note of the settled law as regards the suspension pending enquiry to the effect that it is not an order imposing punishment, and also having regard to the fact that the Articles of Charge were also served on the Writ Petitioner, this Court would be sloth in interfering in such matters at such a nascent stage. 12. Having taken note of the settled law as regards the suspension pending enquiry to the effect that it is not an order imposing punishment, and also having regard to the fact that the Articles of Charge were also served on the Writ Petitioner, this Court would be sloth in interfering in such matters at such a nascent stage. Admittedly, in this case, the Writ Petitioner has filed the Writ Petition within five days of he being placed under suspension. 13. In the above premise, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the present Writ Petition. This Court is also of the view that the Writ Petition is premature in nature. Since the Articles of Charge were also served on the Writ Petitioner with a direction at Para No.3 therein (in G.O.Rt.No.120 dtd. 25/1/2024) that the Writ Petitioner shall submit his 'Written Statement of Defence' within 15 days of the receipt of the Order, this Court is inclined to issue directions to the Respondents considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-22 in Ajay Kumar Chowdhary Vs. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 , to the effect that the Enquiry Officer shall be appointed within four weeks from the date of uploading of this Order in the Website of this Court. There shall also be a further direction that the enquiry shall be completed within 60 days by the Enquiry Officer, preferably on a day to day basis and submit the Enquiry Report to the Disciplinary Authority within three weeks thereafter. The Writ Petitioner shall co-operate in the enquiry. The Respondents shall furnish every piece of incriminating material/documents to the Writ Petitioner within one week from the date of uploading of this Order in the Website of this Court, if not already supplied. Needless to state that the Writ Petitioner shall have liberty to approach this Court for any other cause of action. It is clarified that the observations made, if any, are only for the purpose of disposal of the present Writ Petition and that they shall not have any bearing either in the departmental proceedings or any other future proceedings. 14. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Order as to costs. 15. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.