Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Vijaya Lakshmi, J.
Gundu Sivaji – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 19060 of 2022
Decided On : 25-07-2022
SUSPENSION - PUBLIC SERVANT - G.O. MS. NO. 526, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SERVICES-C) DEPARTMENT, DATED 19.08.2008 - Suspension of a public servant beyond two years - Review of suspension order - Reinstatement of public servant pending finalization of disciplinary cases/criminal cases - Interpretation of G.O. Ms. No. 526 dated 19.08.2008 - Direction to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of G.O. Ms. No. 526 dated 19.08.2008 and take appropriate decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, was placed under suspension for alleged disproportionate assets. He challenged the suspension order, arguing that it was arbitrary and illegal as it did not specify the period of suspension and was contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 526, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008, which provides for review of suspension orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suspension of the petitioner beyond two years without a reasoned order was illegal and violative of G.O. Ms. No. 526 dated 19.08.2008. The court directed the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of G.O. Ms. No. 526 dated 19.08.2008 and take appropriate decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible.
Issues: 1. Whether the suspension of the petitioner beyond two years without a reasoned order was illegal and violative of G.O. Ms. No. 526 dated 19.08.2008? 2. Whether the respondents were required to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of G.O. Ms. No. 526 dated 19.08.2008 and take appropriate decision in the matter?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on G.O. Ms. No. 526, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008, which provides for review of suspension orders and directs that employees who are under suspension for a period exceeding two years shall be reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary cases/criminal cases against them. The court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291, which held that suspension should not extend beyond the period of three months, if the charge sheet is not served on the delinquent employee and if charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of suspension.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of G.O. Ms. No. 526, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008 and take appropriate decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible.
JUDGMENT
K. Vijaya Lakshmi, J. - This Writ Petition is filed questioning G.O. Rt. No. 45, Industries and Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 06.02.2019, issued by the first respondent and consequential proceedings dated 06.02.2019 issued by the second respondent, placing the petitioner under suspension and continuing him under suspension, as arbitrary and illegal.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was promoted as Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and while he was working at Anakapalli, ACB authorities registered a crime against him alleging disproportionate of assets to the known sources of his income and he was placed under suspension with effect from 01.02.2019 vide impugned G.O. Rt. No. 45 dated 06.02.2019; petitioner is being continued under suspension contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 526, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008; questioning the impugned suspension order, petitioner filed WP No. 17532 of 2019 on the ground that the suspension order does not specify the period and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 13.02.2020 directing the respondents to review the suspension order and pass a fresh order within a period of four weeks; petitioner filed a Writ Appeal No. 207 of 2020 seeking his reinstatement and the said appeal was disposed of on 22.06.2020 directing the respondents to take a decision in accordance with law; consequently, the suspension was reviewed and orders were passed on 13.11.2021 continuing the suspension for three more months; after expiry of the said period, petitioner again submitted a representation on 23.05.2022 requesting reinstatement in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 526 dated 19.08.2008, but the said representation is still pending with the authority. Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 291.
4. G.O. Ms. No. 526, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008, provides for review of suspension order. The operative portion of the said GO reads as follows.
'2. After careful consideration, Government direct that, all concerned authorities to strictly implement the policy decision enunciated in the G.O.s read above. It is the responsibility of the competent authority to review each and every case of suspension as per the orders in-force and consider the reinstatement of the employees. The objective is to complete the disciplinary cases against the employees as expeditiously as possible and to punish the guilty. This is the specific policy of the Government for efficient and smooth functioning of the administration.
3. Accordingly, Government, hereby, direct that the employees who are under suspension for a period exceeding two years shall be reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary cases/criminal cases against them. However in exceptional cases, for example, where the charged Officers are not cooperating for completion of investigation/inquiry or when the inquiry/investigation could not be completed due to pendency of litigation, a Committee headed by the Secretary of the administrative Department, Headed of the Department concerned and an official from the Anti Corruption Bureau (where the cases are emanated from Anti Corruption Bureau investigation), shall review the orders of suspension against the employees who are continued under suspension well before completion of two years of suspension and take a decision to continue such employees under suspension beyond two years, duly recording the reasons for such a decision.'
5. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was held that suspension should not extend beyond the period of three months, if the charge sheet is not served on the delinquent employee and if charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of suspension.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the ord
AI
Suspension of a public servant beyond two years without a reasoned order is illegal and violative of G.O. Ms. No. 526, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008.
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....
Suspension of government employees must not exceed one year and requires periodic review to prevent indefinite punitive action without due process.
Prolonged suspension of an officer requires justification; mere pendency of proceedings is insufficient without adequate reasoning.
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 requires adequate justification, especially when delays in departmental proceedings are not attributable to the employee.
Prolonged suspension beyond three months without serving charge memo is unsustainable.
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
