IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.SUJATHA, J.
Batchala Venkata Rao - Appellant
Versus
The Director General Of Police - Respondent
Writ Petition No.17214 of 2021
Decided on : 19-10-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 –Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 – Section 7(a) – Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 – Rule 8 –Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 – Rule 10(7) – Disciplinary proceedings – Cases of suspension – Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking relief – Held, As seen from record, admittedly, approval from Government was not obtained before extending suspension period of petitioner until orders and as per G.O. Ms Department, it is very clear that maximum limit for ordering an employee under suspension is two years and thereafter he has to be reinstated pending disciplinary proceedings – Court thinks that it is a fit case which has to be allowed by setting aside impugned order, leaving it open to petitioner to make a representation to 4th respondent Government within two (02) weeks to consider his case as per G.O.Ms.No.86, GA(Ser-C) Department, and on such application, 4th respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of six (06) weeks thereafter from date of receipt of a copy of this order – Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Inspector of Special Enforcement Bureau in Andhra Pradesh Excise Department on 01.11.2007. While so, on 27.03.2021, a case in F.I.R.No.04/RCT-OGL/2021 of ACB Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. Thereafter, vide proceedings dated 01.04.2021, the 2nd respondent herein in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 28.03.2021 i.e. the date of his remand to judicial custody and directed that the petitioner shall continue to be under suspension in the public interest till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings / termination of all the proceedings relating to the criminal charges.
3. Pending the writ petition, the 2nd respondent vide orders dated 27.10.2021, has extended the suspension period of the petitioner until further orders. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking amendment of the prayer challenging the subsequent order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent, wherein the 2nd respondent has extended the suspension period until further orders, which was allowed by this Court on 20.04.2022.
4. The 2nd respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner was involved in ACB trap case and as such, he was placed under suspension with effect from 28.03.2021. The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.86, GA(Ser-C) Department, dated 08.03.1994 with regard to suspension orders issued the following guidelines against the Government Servants :-
ii) The appropriate reviewing authority should take decision regarding continuance or otherwise of the employee concerned under suspension, with reference to the nature of charges, where delays in finalization of enquiry proceedings cannot be attributed to the employee or when there is no interference from the employee in facilitating the enquiry.
iii) An outer limit be provided as two years from the date of suspension, failing which public servant may have to be reinstated without prejudice to the proceedings being perused. However, in exemptional cases, considering the gravity of the charges, one could be continued under suspension even beyond a period of two years, especially in cases where there is deliberate delay caused due to non-co-operation of the employee concerned.
iv) The concerned Principal Secretary/ Secretary in the Department should review the suspension cases of their department at an interval of six months with the representative of ACB, if the proceedings arose of the investigations conducted by the ACB and make suitable recommendations as to the desirability or otherwise recommendations continuance of the officers under suspension. As per the counter of the 2nd respondent, in the light of the above Government instructions, the petitioner’s suspension period
Point of Law : Mandate of an outer limit of 3 (three) months is only for the purpose of drawing up a departmental proceeding and the requirement to undertake an exercise of review prior to the said p....
A public servant's suspension cannot exceed 270 days under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, if no chargesheet is served or if the mandatory legal timeframe....
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 recordin....
Prolonged suspension of a government employee without timely inquiry and review is unreasonable and violates principles of natural justice and the right to a speedy trial.
Prolonged suspension beyond three months without serving charge memo is unsustainable.
Prolonged suspension of a government employee without timely inquiry or a reasoned order for extension is unreasonable and violates principles of natural justice and the right to a speedy trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.