Suspension of a government employee without prior show-cause notice is permissible under specific rules when serious allegations warrant disciplinary action.

ORDER :

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

“ to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned suspension order vide Proc.No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 155/2025, dated 26.01.2025, charge Memo. No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 164/2025, dated 27.01.2025, and Memo. No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 165/2025, dated 27.01.2025, and Memo. No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 192/2025, dated 31.01.2025, and issuance of the said memos, based on the alleged WhatsApp messages are as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law, consequently, set aside the impugned suspension order, vide Proc.No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/155/2025, dated 26.01.2025, charge Memo.No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 164/2025, dated 27.01.2025, and Memo No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 165/2025, dated 27.01.2025, and Memo No.DSIO/WG/Eluru/ 192/2025, dated 31.01.2025, by reinstating the petitioner into service with full back wages and all consequential benefits and pass…..”

2. Petitioner was working as Head Warder at Special Sub- Jail, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. Whileso, he was placed under suspension by impugned proceedings, dated 26.01.2025, on the allegations that he posted inappropriate and disrespectful message against an officer in Andhra Pradesh Jails Employees WhatsApp group, which is in violation of Rule 89 of the Andhra Pradesh Prisons Rules, 1979. Further, that while having telephonic conversation with Sri M.R. Ravi Kiran, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coastal Andhra Range, Rajamahendravaram, he secretly recorded the same without aforesaid officer’s knowledge and posted in Andhra Pradesh Jails Employees WhatsApp group, which violated the right to privacy of the said officer, and lastly, he posted another message in the very same group defaming an officer that the said officer and his deceased mother played fraud on Government in getting Chief Minister Relief Fund, which yet again was construed to be a misconduct in violation of Rule 89 of the A.P. Prisons Rules, 1979 and Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The impugned orders came to be issued on 26.01.2025 when the said alleged acts are said to have been committed just a day before i.e. 25.01.2025. The 4^th respondent immediately on the next day issued charge memo, dated 27.01.2025, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation within five days from the date of receipt of such notice, which was served on 31.01.2025. Meanwhile, petitioner submitted application, dated 27.01.2025, requesting for leave from 27.01.2025 to 02.02.2025 to attend his wife’s medical treatment, which came to be rejected by the 4^th respondent on the same day, as the said application did not contain necessary details. Petitioner stated to have been served another memo, dated 31.01.2025, with presumptuous and assumptuous allegations, aggrieved by the same, petitioner constrained to file the present writ petition.

3. The 4^th respondent filed counter-affidavit inter alia stating that petitioner while working as Head Warder in Special Sub-Jail, Bhimavaram, has been placed under suspension, by proceedings, dated 26.01.2025, and the allegations on which he has been placed under suspension are being enquired into. So far no charge-memo has been issued and the allegation that 4^th respondent issued charge memo, dated 27.01.2025 is misplaced as the said memo only requires the petitioner to submit certain information which is being collected in the process of enquiry. It is also stated that against the order of suspension, an appeal is provided before the appellate Authority under Rule 34(iii) of the A.P. Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, and so, petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal. So far as allegations are concerned, it is stated that based on news item telecasted on 21.01.2025 by Maha News Channel, which depicted that prisoner from semi-open prison, Rajamahendravaram, was shown entering