SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(AP) 41

High Court of Andhra Pradesh
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V. SANJAY KUMAR
The Deputy General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool District & Others
Versus
R.S. Madhubabu, RSI Kurnool District
Writ Petition No. 186 of 2009
Decided on : 05-02-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Government Pleader for Services I. For the Respondent:B. Neeraja Sudhakar Reddy, M.R. Tagore, Advocates.

Headnote:

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 – Quash of Decision - The respondent herein, had approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to declare the action of the first respondent therein-The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, in issuing the impugned suspension orders vide C.No.C2/346/2008/R.O.O.No. 648/2008 as illegal, arbitrary and non-application of mind and consequently to set aside the same - The Tribunal allowed the O.A on the ground that the suspension was effected without application of mind and instead the authorities could have resorted to transfer him to a far off place only with a view to see that the applicant does not tamper the records during the course of enquiry – Held, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of suspension passed by competent authority, particularly when the authorities have got the power under Rule 8 of the APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry. All the aspects have to be gone into by the factfinding authority and the enquiry will disclose the truth and otherwise of the allegations. Further, it is settled preposition of law that suspension pending enquiry cannot be interfered with and the Courts can direct only to conclude and complete the proceedings. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal instead of directing the authorities to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent within the time frame, exceeded its limit and over stepped its jurisdiction by directing the authorities that he should be transferred to a far off place, which is impermissible under law and unwarranted. As the task undertaken by the Tribunal is impermissible under law, the order passed by it suffers from various serious legal infirmities and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside – Petition allowed

Judgment :-

Ghulam Mohammed, J.


This Writ Petition has been filed by the Government seeking to quash the decision rendered in O.A.No. 8566 of 2008 dated 28.11.2008 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.


The respondent herein, had approached the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to declare the action of the first respondent therein-The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, in issuing the impugned suspension orders vide C.No.C2/346/2008/R.O.O.No. 648/2008 dated 26.9.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and non-application of mind and consequently to set aside the same.


The Tribunal allowed the O.A on the ground that the suspension was effected without application of mind and instead the authorities could have resorted to transfer him to a far off place only with a view to see that the applicant does not tamper the records during the course of enquiry. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent while working at D.A.R., Kurnool as RSI was deputed for special duty by the S.P., Kurnool, for area domination at Ahobilam, as the regular RSI incharge of Rudravaram Special Party was on leave, and he was made as incharge of the Special Party at Ahobilam from 27.8.2008 onwards. The Special Party base camp at Ahobilam closed on 16.9.2008 and said special party was directed to go to Rudravaram base camp by superior officer Sri S. Krishna Mohan, R.I. But instead of proceeding to Rudravaram along with special party, the respondent disappeared. He has not given any information about his disappearance/absence to his supervisory officer Sri Krishna Mohan or to any other officer. It is further submitted that since there was no information about his whereabouts, the OSD, Nandyal has conducted fact finding enquiry and submitted a report through S.P of Police, Kurnool to the DIG of Kurnool vide letter dated 26.9.2008 stating that the respondent disappeared from duty, without any leave or permission, unauthorizedly left the special party in the Forest Base, affected with extremists activities at Ahobilam and recommended for suitable disciplinary action for the said gross delinquency. It is also submitted that after receipt of the said enquiry report of OSD, Nandyal, through SP of Police, Kurnool and after careful examination of the matter and having due regard to the facts and circumstances of enquiry report, the respdnent was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 26.9.2008 for exhibiting gross negligence of duty and reprehensible conduct by leaving the special party in the Forest base affected with extremist activities at Ahobilam, without any incharge and became absent himself from duties unauthorizedly, as it amounts to violation of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 (for short "APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964"). In the circumstances, an Article of Charge was issued under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short "A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991") vide memorandum of Charge dated 13.10.2008 by disciplinary authority-the first petitioner herein. The respondent having acknowledged the same submitted his explanation to the article of charge and an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry under APCS (CCA) Rules and accordingly a charge memo dated 13.10.2008 was issued, which reads as under:-


MEMORANDUM OF CHARGE


"It is proposed to hold an enquiry against Sri R.S. Madhu Babu, RSI, DAR, Kurnool now under suspension under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. The substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the enquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of Article of Charge (Annexure-I). A Statement of Imputation of misconduct and misbehaviour in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-II). A list of witnesses by whom and a list of documents by which, the article of charge are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top