Point of law: seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., voice messages along with the complaint by the complainant Anil Proddaturu and recording of satisfaction by the 4th respondent while passing impugned order of suspension of the petitioner and it is supported by prima facie evidence.

Headnote:
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 – Rule 8 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226, 311, 14, 19, 21 – Suspension – Petition Declaring the action of placing the petitioner under suspension from service vide order as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently reinstate him in the same post. – Petitioner joined in Education Department as Junior Assistant in the year 1989 at Vizianagaram and worked with utmost satisfaction of the authorities. – The petitioner served at different places and as on date, working as Assistant Director in the office of the Regional Joint Director, School Education Department, Kadapa, on promotion from different cadres. – Till date, no remarks are recorded against the petitioner at any time. – Thus, petitioner discharged his duties with due diligence and honestly.
Finding of court: Interference is not necessitated in this case by this Court based on the principle laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case. All these principles were considered by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna Vs State Of A.P., 2016 (3) ALT 727 to which court is one of the members of the Division Bench. – Therefore, applying the same principle to the present facts of the case, it is difficult to interfere with the administrative order of suspension passed by exercising power under Rule 8(1) of A.P.Civil Services (CCL) Rules, 1991, keeping in view of the seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., voice messages along with the complaint by the complainant Anil Proddaturu and recording of satisfaction by the 4th respondent while passing impugned order of suspension of the petitioner and it is supported by prima facie evidence. – Order impugned in the writ petition placing the petitioner under suspension till completion of inquiry, he appears to be erroneous since the suspension order is required to be reviewed at the end of every six months as discussed in the earlier paras vide G.O.Ms.Nos.86 and 526 referred above. – Hence, it is obligatory on the part of the 4th respondent to review the order at the end of every six months period and take administrative decision either to continue the Government servant under suspension or revoke the same in the interest of the State. – Therefore, the order of suspension impugned in the Writ Petition does not preclude the authorities to review this order of suspension at the end of every six months strictly adhering to G.O.Ms.Nos.86 and 526 referred above, otherwise it would amount to suspension ad infinitum which may cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and remain as stigma throughout his career besides affecting the promotional chances and causing financial loss – Court find no ground to set aside the impugned order of suspension, vide Rc. and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Result: Writ Petition Dismissed

ORDER :

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for issue of writ of mandamus declaring the action of placing the petitioner under suspension from service vide order dated 24.08.2020,Rc.No.ESE02-12021/238/2020-PESHI-CSE, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently reinstate him in the same post.

2. The petitioner joined in Education Department as Junior Assistant in the year 1989 at Vizianagaram and worked with utmost satisfaction of the authorities. The petitioner served at different places and as on date, working as Assistant Director in the office of the Regional Joint Director, School Education Department, Kadapa, on promotion from different cadres. Till date, no remarks are recorded against the petitioner at any time. Thus, petitioner discharged his duties with due diligence and honestly.

3. While working at Kadapa as Assistant Director in the office of Regional Joint Director of Education Department, one Konda Sudhakar Reddy, C.Suresh Babu, who are superintendents working in the office of DEO, Kadapa and Sri M.Venkata Krishna Reddy, RJDSE Kadapa, have conspired together and started harassing the petitioner in one way or the other for different personal reasons. All of them have conspired together and sent a Telugu letter to the 2nd respondent from one press reporter by name Anil Proddatur. He made a complaint against the petitioner by addressing a letter to the Commissioner, School Education Department, alleging that he is misusing his official power and revealing official secrets of the Department, to the third parties and thereby he is minting money. It is also alleged that with the money, he purchased house at Visakhapatnam and thereby tarnishing the image of the Department. It is also alleged that he is lodging fake complaints against the department officials by name Palle Ramesh and others and that he is taking photographs of the letters received in the inward department and sharing the said photographs to the outsiders as such he is revealing the official information to various third parties even before such information reached the concerned departments, hence requested to take appropriate action against the petitioner to safeguard the interest of the Education Department and to keep up the prestige of the Department. The allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless but he was backed by departmental officials only with a view to harass him in one way or the other and they transformed their idea into reality and sent those complaints only with a view to send him out from the present station.

4. On receipt of the letter, Regional Joint Director, School Education Department 4th respondent herein, issued notice to the petitioner dated 18.08.2020 vide Rc.No.2641/B2/2020 calling for his remarks on the complaint submitted by the press reporter Anil Proddatur. Accordingly, petitioner submitted his remarks on 19.08.2020 denying the allegations. It is specifically contended that there is no iota of truth in the allegations made in the complaint and it is not based on any material but without considering the remarks submitted by the petitioner to the 4th respondent, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 24.08.2020.

5. The impugned suspension order is questioned on the following grounds.

(a) There is no iota of truth in the allegations made in the complaint lodged against the petitioner.

(b) The disciplinary authority did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner and recorded no satisfaction to place the petitioner under suspension in the absence of any material for order of suspension, is illegal and arbitrary.

(c) Placing the petitioner under suspension on the baseless and vague complaint letter lodged by the press reporter against the petitioner without considering the lurking malice behind the letter is a serious illegality.

(d) On account of placing the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(AP) 60

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIM.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.M.R.A. Samuel – AppellantVersusThe State of Andhra Pradesh – RespondentWrit Petition No.17187 of 2020Decided on : 18-02-2021

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
M.R.A. Samuel – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.17187 of 2020
Decided on : 18-02-2021