Back
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
RAMESH RANGANATHAN & M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, JJ.
Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna - Petitioner
Versus
State of A.P. rep., by its Principal Secretary, TR & B Department, Secretariat & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7618 of 2015
Decided On : 01-06-2015
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991– Rule 8(2)(5)(a) and (c) – Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) – Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 10 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 162 – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Article 21 – Invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal – Order of Suspension – Sought for a direction to respondents to revoke his suspension, and to reinstate him to duty – Questioning the action of the disciplinary authority in not taking steps, in the exercise of the enabling provisions under Rule 8 Rules, 1991 – Tribunal noted that a charge sheet had not yet been filed in the criminal case registered against the petitioner; Rule 8 provided that the order of suspension, made by the competent authority, shall continue to remain in force unless and until it is modified or revoked by the authority; Rule 8 stipulated that the competent authority may, at any time, modify or revoke the suspension order; the State Rules did not mandate the competent authority, who placed the petitioner under suspension, to review or revoke the suspension order soon after the material witnesses were examined State Government had issued executive instructions which required Disciplinary Authority to review the cases of suspension after every six months; the petitioners contention that action of respondent, in not revoking his suspension, was against statutory provisions was incorrect and invalid; it was clear from the averments and pleadings, in the counter filed by respondents, that the criminal charge, under investigation, was connected with the petitioners official position as a government servant – Held, contention of the learned counsel for respondent that there has been no application of mind or the objective consideration of the facts by the appellant before it passed the orders of suspension already observed, the very fact that the investigation was conducted by the CBI which resulted in the filing of a charge-sheet, alleging various offences having been committed by the respondent was sufficient for the appellant to conclude that pending prosecution the respondent should be suspended – It would be indeed inconceivable that a bank should allow an employee to continue to remain on duty when he is facing serious charges of corruption and misappropriation of money. Allowing such an employee to remain in the seat would result in giving him further opportunity to indulge in the acts for which he was being prosecuted – Under circumstances it was the bounden duty of the appellant to have taken recourse to the provisions of clause 19.3 of the First Bipartite Settlement, 1966. The mere fact that nearly years have elapsed since the charge-sheet was filed, can also be no ground for allowing the respondent to come back to duty on a sensitive post in the Bank, unless he is exonerated of charge – Writ Petition dismissed.
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
This Writ Petition is filed against the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in O.A. No.7241 of 2014 dated 26.02.2015. The Petitioner herein invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal questioning the action of the disciplinary authority in not taking steps, in the exercise of the enabling provisions under Rule 8(2)(5)(a) and (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, as illegal and arbitrary. By way of consequential relief he sought for a direction to the respondents to revoke his suspension, and to reinstate him to duty.
In its order, in O.A. No.7241 of 2014 dated 26.02.2015, the Tribunal noted that a charge sheet had not yet been filed in the criminal case registered against the petitioner; Rule 8(5)(a) provided that the order of suspension, made by the competent authority, shall continue to remain in force unless and until it is modified or revoked by the authority; Rule 8(5)(c) stipulated that the competent authority may, at any time, modify or revoke the suspension order; the State Rules did not mandate the competent authority, who placed the petitioner under suspension, to review or revoke the suspension order soon after the material witnesses were examined; the State Government had issued executive instructions which required the Disciplinary Authority to review the cases of suspension after every six months; the petitioners contention that the action of the 2nd respondent, in not revoking his suspension, was against statutory provisions was incorrect and invalid; it was clear from the averments and pleadings, in the counter filed by the respondents, that the criminal charge, under investigation, was connected with the petitioners official position as a government servant, and it involved moral turpitude; the continuation of the petitioner under suspension was fully justified and warranted; and the 2nd respondent was at liberty to review the petitioners suspension as per Rules, and the executive instructions issued by the Government in this regard. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
Facts, to the extent relevant, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector in the year 1994. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector. After obtaining permission from the Joint Director (Andhra) ACB, Hyderabad, vide proceeding No.7/ACB-JD(A)/RCA- 2014 dated 12.06.2014 for registering a case and to conduct investigation, the Anti Corruption Bureau conducted a search at the petitioners office, residence and certain other places on 18.06.2014. An inventory was made on 18.06.2014 at 11.30 hours. On the ground that there was credible information, that he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, FIR No.11/RCA-EWG/2014 was registered against the petitioner at ACB Range police station, Eluru on 16.06.2014 for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested on 17.07.2014, and was produced before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases. He was remanded to judicial custody on the same day. Thereafter, on the ground that he was in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 04.08.2014, placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 17.07.2014. The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.9880 of 2014 before this Court and, by order dated 27.11.2014, bail was granted to him on certain conditions. The validity of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 04.08.2014 was questioned before the Tribunal wherein the petitioner contended that, on facts, the assets found were not disproportionate to his known sources of income; and the order placing him under suspension was illegal. It is for the first time before this Court has it been contended that
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
