IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G.Ramakrishna Prasad, J.
M.Rama Rao - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2575 of 2024
Decided On : 09-02-2024
Suspension - Quasi-Judicial Functions - APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 - R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India, (1964) 5 SCR 431 - P.L. Shah Vs. Union of India and Another: (1989) 1 SCC 546 - Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna Vs State of A.P rep., by its Principal Secretary, TR and B Department and Ors.: 2016 (3) ALT 727 (DB) - Sasa Musa Sugar Works (P) Ltd., v. Shobrati Khan: AIR 1959 SC 923 - State of Orissa v. Bhimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitioner was suspended by the Secretary to the Government without prior notice. The Writ Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the suspension as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the suspension was not an order of punishment but an interim order pending enquiry. The Court held that the Writ Petition was premature and directed the appointment of an Enquiry Officer and completion of the enquiry within 60 days.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the suspension without prior notice and the applicability of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991.
Ratio Decidendi: The suspension pending enquiry is not an order imposing punishment but an interim measure to facilitate the enquiry. The Court also emphasized the need for expeditious completion of the enquiry.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with directions for the appointment of an Enquiry Officer and completion of the enquiry within 60 days.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner (appearing through video conference) and Smt. M. Hemalatha, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Smt. M. Hemalatha, Ld. Asst. Government Pleader for Services-III has passed across the table the proceedings of the Secretary to Government issued to the Writ Petitioner dtd. 25/1/2024, which is the Charge Memo, indicating about the Articles of Charge framed against the Writ Petitioner.
3. The prayer in the present Writ Petition is as under:
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing G.O.Rt.No.118, Labour, Factories, Boilers and Insurance Medical Services (Lab.I) Department dtd. 25/1/2024 where under the petitioner was suspended by the 1st respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently to set aside the said G.O., in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. This Court has noticed at Para No.3 of the Impugned Order G.O.Rt.No.118 Labour Factories Boilers and Insurance Medical Services (Lab.1) Department, dtd. 25/1/2024 (Ex.P1) that in pursuance of a Report of the Commissioner of Labour, the Writ Petitioner was suspended by the Secretary to the Government (Labour, Factories Boilers and Insurance Medical Services (Lab.I) Department vide G.O.Rt.No.118 dtd. 25/1/2024 by exercise of powers conferred by Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. Para No.3 of the said proceeding is usefully extracted hereunder:
"3. And whereas the Government after careful consideration of report of Commissioner of Labour and having due regard to the circumstances of the case is satisfied that it is necessary to place Sri M. Rama Rao, Joint Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam, under suspension."
4. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner is performing quasi-judicial functions and therefore, the least that the Official Respondents could have done is to put the Petitioner on Notice before passing the Impugned Order. Smt. M. Hemalatha, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader has furnished across the table the 'Charge Memo' issued to the Writ Petitioner which is dtd. 25/1/2024. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would respond that the Charge Memo, though is dtd. 25/1/2024, the same has been supplied to the Writ Petitioner only on 31/1/2024, whereas, the Writ Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition on 30/1/2024 and the impugned Order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Writ Petitioner ought to have been put on Notice before suspension.
5. In R.P. Kapur Vs. Union of India, (1964) 5 SCR 431, the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression 'disciplinary matters' will also include 'suspension' by way of punishment as well as 'suspension' pending enquiry. The purpose of suspension pending enquiry is generally to facilitate the departmental enquiry and to ensure that in the course of enquiry, a public servant is not in a position to misuse his authority. Such a 'suspension', therefore, is a matter which relates to 'disciplinary matters'.
6. In P.L. Shah Vs. Union of India and Another: (1989) 1 SCC 546, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Para No.6, held as under:
6. An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him.
Such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in the public interest and also in the interest of the government servant concerned. ..................................... ................................................................................."
Ajay Kumar Chowdhary Vs. Union of India
Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna Vs State of A.P rep., by its Principal Secretary
P.L. Shah Vs. Union of India and Another: (1989) 1 SCC 546
The suspension pending enquiry is not an order of punishment but an interim measure to facilitate the enquiry and ensure smooth disposal of proceedings.
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....
Suspension of a government servant must be based on serious allegations and objective consideration, with documented reasoning to prevent arbitrariness.
Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of suspension passed by competent authority, particularly when the authorities have got the power under Rule 8 of the APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 to pla....
Prolonged suspension beyond three months without serving charge memo is unsustainable.
Suspension orders must reflect independent decision-making by statutory authorities and cannot be arbitrary or merely routine; otherwise, they may violate constitutional rights.
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.