( 51 ) THE next question that falls for consideration is about the validity of Clause (4) (d) of the Government Memo No. 700/sc/d/88-4, dated 13-2-1989.

( 52 ) THE Government of Andhra Pradesh having noticed a number of complaints that the investigations/enquiries by the Anti Corruption Bureau were taking long time resulting in officers, placed under suspension pending enquiry, to languish under suspension for long periods reviewed, in detail, the measures necessary to streamline the investigations/enquiries in ACB cases and accordingly issued guidelines with a view to ensure the expeditious completion of enquiries/investigations by the ACB. The instructions issued in Memo No. 700/sc/d/88-4, dated 13-2-1989 are mere guidelines. They are made for the guidance of all the concerned including the investigating/ enquiring authorities. Those guidelines in no manner interfere with the discretion and jurisdiction of the competent authorities concerned either in the matter of placing the accused officer under suspension pending enquiry or initiating such action, as may be necessary, in public interest to protect the integrity and purity of the investigation process. Clause (4) (d) of the said Memorandum of guidelines suggests that in a case where the charge sheet is filed against an accused officer he should be placed under suspension. In our considered opinion, the impugned clause does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Government is always entitled to issue guidelines for the benefit of its officers in order to structure their discretion in the matter of exercise of statutory power in public interest.

( 53 ) WHAT is wrong in Government directing the authorities concerned to place its officers under suspension particularly when a charge-sheet under the provisions of POC Act, 1988 is filed in a competent Court of jurisdiction after completing the investigation?

( 54 ) IT is needless to restate that the charge-sheet in a criminal case is nothing but a gist of the result of the investigation. If the investigation reveals the commission of an offence of criminal misconduct by an officer, it is but natural for the authority concerned to set the law in motion to initiate appropriate further action against such public servant against whom a prima facie case is made out. However, the guidelines issued are not in the nature of any command as such. The authorities concerned have to weigh and take various relevant factors into consideration before exercising their jurisdiction to place an officer under suspension pending enquiry. At any rate, the petitioner herein is not yet placed under any suspension pending enquiry and, therefore, no opinion need be expressed in this regard. Suffice it to observe that the competent authority cannot be prevented from initiating any action as such against the petitioner. Such a course is not permissible in law. We do not find any substance in the contention.

( 55 ) IT is next contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the failure to complete the investigation within six months in terms of the instructions issued in Memo No. 700/sc/d/88-4, dated 13-2-1989 vitiates the entire investigation and the report submitted by the Investigating Officer. It is contended that no further proceedings can be allowed to go on against the petitioner since the Investigating Officer failed to complete the investigation within six months as is required in accordance with the said Memo issued by the Government.

( 56 ) IN the said Memorandum of guidelines the State Government issued certain guidelines for compliance by the Investigating Officers of the Anti Corruption Bureau. One of the guidelines relates to the investigation to be completed within six months. In the instant case, the first information report was registered on 19-9-1995; searches were conducted on 22-9-1995 and a draft final report was submitted on 18-1-1997 by the Investigating Officer. During the course of investigation,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document