Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 293 (AP)

Sk Shehenshah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-02-28

G.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

body2024
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri M. Siva Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. The Order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.166 of 2014 dtd. 20/4/2022 cited by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner is not relevant at the present stage. In the instant case, the Writ Petitioner has been suspended on 20/2/2024 (vide the Impugned Order (Ex.P.1)) and a Charge Memo has also been issued, on the allegation that he has been in an intoxicated condition while he was proceeding to perform duty. 3. 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'. 4. 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........................................................................................ ...................................................................................................." 5. In Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna Vs State of A.P rep., by its Principal Secretary, TR & B Department & 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.)). 6. Admittedly, since the inquiry, vis-a-vis the Charge-Memo, is at a nascent stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Suspension Order dtd. 20/2/2024 (impugned herein). However, this Court is inclined to issue certain 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 . The directions are as under: i. the Enquiry Officer shall be appointed within two weeks from the date of uploading of this Order in the Website of this Court; ii. the enquiry shall be completed within 30 days by the Enquiry Officer, preferably on a day to day basis, and submit the Enquiry Report to the Disciplinary Authority within two weeks thereafter; iii. the Writ Petitioner shall co-operate in the enquiry; iv. 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. 7. 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 on any other future proceedings. 8. With the above observations, and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No Order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this Order.