Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, LALITHA KANNEGANTI, JJ.
A.B. Venkateswara Rao, IPS (AP-1989), S/o Late Balaswamy - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Chief Secretary to the Government – Respondent
Writ Petition No.8185 of 2020
Decided on : 22-05-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, Senior Counsel appeared on behalf of Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, adv
For the Respondent: Smt. M. Indrani
Point of Law: there should be some material for the Appointing Authority to come to a conclusion about the nature of the charges and the circumstances of the case. The further satisfaction for keeping the Officer under suspension and/or continuing him should also be based on some material.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - To issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records - To issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of - to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.18 General Administration (SC.D) Department issued by the 1st respondent keeping the petitioner under suspension under Rule 3 (1) of the India Service (D & A) Rules, 1969 as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, andconsequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits – Held, distinction between the writ of Certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction is also slowly being obliterated. However, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a person is entitled to seek a number of reliefs. Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself uses the words “for any other purpose” after describing the types of writs for enforcement of fundamental rights, which clearly shows that more than one writ can be prayed for. A combination of prayers is also necessary in the present situation. The facts and circumstances of this case would mean that if the order in the O.A. is set aside, the petitioner would be driven to a further round of litigation if Certiorari alone is granted. Any order passed by this Court should not be an empty formality. Courts exist to do justice between the parties and not to drive the parties to multiple rounds of litigation. In order to do complete justice between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, after setting aside the order in the O.A., the petitioner should not be driven to another round of litigation and therefore, an order directing him to be reinstated into service while continuing with the enquiry is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case –Ordered accordingly
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner before this Court is an IPS Officer, who is working in the rank of Director General of Police. He was suspended by the first respondent on certain grounds. Before suspension, he was relieved of his duties as Director General of ACB. He reported to the General Administration Department on 31.05.2019. Since then, he was not given any posting for a considerable period of time
Finding of the Court:
distinction between the writ of Certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction is also slowly being obliterated. However, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a person is entitled to seek a number of reliefs. Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself uses the words “for any other purpose” after describing the types of writs for enforcement of fundamental rights, which clearly shows that more than one writ can be prayed for. A combination of prayers is also necessary in the present situation. The facts and circumstances of this case would mean that if the order in the O.A. is set aside, the petitioner would be driven to a further round of litigation if Certiorari alone is granted. Any order passed by this Court should not be an empty formality. Courts exist to do justice between the parties and not to drive the parties to multiple rounds of litigation. In order to do complete justice between the parties, this Court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, after setting aside the order in the O.A., the petitioner should not be driven to another round of litigation and therefore, an order directing him to be reinstated into service while continuing with the enquiry is appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Result: Ordered accordingly
ORDER :
D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J.
1. This writ petition is filed by the present petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
“..to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of
(i) writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to OA.No. 020/0149/2020 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the order dated 17.03.2020 made therein,
(ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.18 General Administration (SC.D) Department dated 08.02.2020 issued by the 1st respondent keeping the petitioner under suspension under Rule 3 (1) of the India Service (D & A) Rules, 1969 as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and
(iii) consequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits”
2. The petitioner before this Court is an IPS Officer, who is working in the rank of Director General of Police. He was suspended by the first respondent on certain grounds. Before suspension, he was relieved of his duties as Director General of ACB. He reported to the General Administration Department on 31.05.2019. Since then, he was not given any posting for a considerable period of time. Thereafter, he was suspended from service on 08.02.2020. He questioned the said order of suspension by filing OA.No.020/0149/2020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The same was heard on merits and dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2020. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed for the reliefs mentioned above.
3. This Court has heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner. The learned Advocate General appeared for the first and second respondents. For the third respondent/Union of India, Smt. M.Indrani, learned standing counsel appeared and argued the matter.
4. Counter affidavit of the first respondent has been filed along with the material papers. The third respondent’s counsel supported the arguments of the learned Advocate General.
Petitioner’s case:
5. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, pointed out the sequence of events that took place between 30.05.2019 and 08.02.2020. After the new Government for the State of Andhra Pradesh assumed Office, the petitioner, who was serving as Director General, ACB was transferred and not given any posting whatsoever from May, 2019 onwards. Thereafter, the learned senior counsel points out that on 02.02.2020, the Director General of Police writes to the Additional Director General, CID to investigate and submit a report with regard to some alleged irregularities in a tender relating to the procurement and finalization of certain equipment. This investigation is entrusted by the Additional Director General, CID to a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who completed his enquiry within three days and sent a report dated 06.02.2020. On 07.02.2020, the Director General of Police sent the report of the enquiry to the State. On 08.02.2020, based on the report, the petitioner was suspended. The learned senior counsel points out that the sequence of events clearly reveal that the entire action is vitiated with malice; was done with undue haste and is also not according to the Rules. The petitioner is a member of All India Services and as per the learned senior counsel, a close reading of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 (for short ‘the 1968 Rules’) and the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the 1969 Rules’) would reveal that the action taken is not as per the Rules. The learned senior counsel also argues that the petitioner was working in the Intelligence Department, which is the user-department of the equipment that was sought to be procured by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. He points out that the petitioner or the Intelligence Department is not the tender approving Authority or the actual procuring agency. As per him, th
