Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
Budda Adinarayana – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
W.P. No. 14438 of 2021
Decided On : 18-04-2023
SUSPENSION - PUBLIC SERVANT - INLAND VESSELS ACT, 1917 - A.P. INLAND VESSELS RULES, 2017 - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - A.P. CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1991 - Suspension of a public servant - Legality - Scope of judicial review - Held, the impugned suspension proceedings were not issued to achieve the object under Sec. 8 (c) of the CCA Rules, 1991 by the 1st respondent by assessing the facts and circumstances of the case as warranted, but the same were issued at the advice or behest of the 3rd respondent.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Port Officer, was suspended from service for his alleged involvement in a bribery case. The suspension was ordered after a lapse of 18 months from the date of the alleged incident and at the recommendation of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). The petitioner challenged the suspension order, contending that it was illegal, arbitrary, and punitive in nature.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned suspension proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The court found that the suspension was not issued to achieve the object under Sec. 8 (c) of the CCA Rules, 1991 by the 1st respondent by assessing the facts and circumstances of the case as warranted, but the same were issued at the advice or behest of the 3rd respondent. The court also found that the suspension was selective and punitive in nature, as it was issued after a lapse of 18 months and at the recommendation of the ACB, leaving the other employees, who were involved in the same crime, unscathed.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned suspension proceedings were issued to achieve the object under Sec. 8 (c) of the CCA Rules, 1991 by the 1st respondent by assessing the facts and circumstances of the case as warranted? 2. Whether the suspension was selective and punitive in nature? 3. Whether the continuation of suspension of the petitioner for an indefinite period was against the public interest?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. 2. The suspension order constitutes a great hardship to the person concerned as it leads to reduction in emoluments, adversely affects his prospects of promotion and also carry a stigma, an order of suspension should not be made in a perfunctory or in a routine and casual manner, more particularly, at the instance of a third party. 3. The continuation of suspension of a public servant for an indefinite period is against the public interest and also at cost of public exchequer and finally will hamper the prospects and future of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of suspension of the petitioner issued by the 1st petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.35 dtd. 5/7/2021 and the subsequent Memo dtd. 30/10/2022 issued by the respondents. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed to declare the orders of the 1st respondent issued in G.O.Rt.No.35, Infrastructure & Investment (Ports) Department, dtd. 5/7/2021, and the consequential Memo dtd. 30/10/2022, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Ms. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned standing counsel for ACB appearing for the 3rd respondent.
3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Port Officer in the Port Services on 15/11/2011 on contract basis for a period of one year. Later, pursuant to a notification No.22/2011 dtd. 27/12/2011 issued by the APPSC for regular appointment of Port Officers in the A.P. Port Services, he applied for the said post and on being selected, he was appointed as a regular Port Officer vide G.O.Ms.No.11, Infrastructure & Investment (Ports) Department, dtd. 20/7/2013 and accordingly, he joined duty on 22/7/2013 at Kakinada Anchorage Port. Subsequently, on 20/7/2016 he was designated and posted as a Special Officer, Bhavanapadu Project vide G.O.Ms.No.89, energy, Infrastructure & Investment (Ports.II) Department, dtd. 20/7/2016. Thereafter, the 1st respondent constituted the A.P. Maritime Board at Kakinada on 16/12/2019 and Officers from the Port Services were absorbed into the Board.
i) The petitioner has been functioning as the Port Officer, Kakinada since November, 2019. As most of the boats, which were registered under the provisions of the A.P. Inland Vessels Rules, 2017, that are quite, stringent, the petitioner in the month of January, 2020 conducted counselling to majority of the boat and barge operators in the Kakinada Port. Having conducted extensive counselling for them and then they realised that it would not be practical for them being small operators to adhere to the Inland Vessels Act, 1917 or the A.P. Inland Vessels Rules, 2017 which are rigorous, the petitioner suggested them to convert their registrations into A.P. Harbour Craft Rules.
ii) While things stood thus, in the process of conversion of registrations into the A.P. Harbour Craft Rules, it appears that one owner of a Barge called "Sunny Glory" complained with the officers of the 3rd respondent on 5/2/2020 that Sri D.Venkat Rao, who was working as Port Conservator in the Kakinada Port under the petitioner had demanded a bribe of Rs.60,000.00 on the pretext that Rs.50,000.00 will be paid to the petitioner and the remaining amount will be equally shared by him and the harbour Craft Superintendent, for doing official favour i.e., to process the file pertaining to registration of his Barge "Sunny Glory" and to issue registration certificate duly signed by the Port Officer. Based on the said complaint, the 3rd respondent registered an F.I.R. No.4/RCTRJY/2020 dtd. 6/2/2020 against said D.Venkat Rao as a sole accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At the time of investigation by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner's name was also included as accused No.2 in the said crime. On that, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dtd. 12/2/2020 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him, for which the petitioner submitted an explanation on 13/2/2020.
iii) In fact, the petitioner was never arrested by the respondent authorities and finally, he was granted anticipatory bail on 5/3/2021. Even after the registration of the crime, the petitioner has been continuing in service and discharging his duties as usual. While so, the 1st respondent issued orders vide G.O.Rt.No.35, Infrastructure and Investment (Ports) Department, dtd. 5/7/2021, placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect pending enquiry. Hence the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned proceedings dtd. 5/7/2021 were issued by the 1st respondent purely basing on t
The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a st....
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....
The suspension order must be reviewed within 90 days as per Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, and the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner.
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 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.
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 orders under Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules must be reviewed within 90 days; failure to do so invalidates the suspension.
A suspension order must be accompanied by a reasoned order for extension beyond three months if a charge-sheet is served, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
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
