Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 9508
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 34132 OF 2022 Between:
1. T ARUNA KUMARI D/o T. Chowdary, aged 40 years, Occ- Station House Officer/Enforcement Inspector (under suspension), SEB Station, Naidupet, Tirupati District, R/o.D.No- 7-465 Vijayanagar Colony, Perala Post, Chirala Mandal, Bapatla District, Andhra Pradesh ...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF AP Rep. By The Special Chief Secretary, CT, Excise and R and S Departments, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, AP.
2. The Commissioner Special Enforcement BureauMangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, 3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District, Andhra Pradesh.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): A RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.34132 of 2022
ORDER:
The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering the representation of the petitioner for revoking the suspension orders against the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The petitioner joined in the service as Sub-
Inspector on 09.11.2010. Later, he has been promoted as Circle Inspector and posted to SEB Station, Naidupet, Tirupati District on 16.06.2021 and the petitioner was also placed as full additional charge to the post of Circle Inspector, SEB, Vakadu from 30.01.2022 to 06.02.2022.
3. Based on the complaint lodged by one Sri Yaddala Prathap Reddy resident of Naidupet, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB NelloreRange, Nellore registered the same as Crime No.1/RCT-ACB-NLR/2022, dated 02.02.2022 under Section 7(c) of P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018. In the said crime, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. Subsequently, the Comissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, Mangalagiri vide proceedings dated 02.02.2022, placed the petitioner under suspension, basing on the report of the Joint Director, SEB, Tirupati. Subsequently, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nellore issued notice under Section 161 Cr.P.C., dated 26.02.2022, 04.03.2022 for which the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation on 10.03.2022. It is not out of the place to mention that while discharging the duties at Naidupet, three police cases were booked against the complainant/Prathap Reddy. The present crime was against the petitioner, excise constable and head constable. It is also a fact that the petitioner was not present on the alleged date at ACB station, Naidupet as he conducted raids and returned at 9.40 pm which is noted in G.D.
entries dated 02.11.2021.
4. Though, there is lapse of one year from the date of suspension, the respondents have not revoked the suspension and not passed any orders. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation dated 19.09.2022 to the respondents to revoke the suspension orders of the petitioner and requested to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation as per the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in V.Venkata Subba Rao Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police and State of Haryana & Others1 and also in another case in Ashok Tshering Bhutia Vs. State of Sikkim2. For non consideration of the above said representation, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
5. After notice, the 2nd respondent has filed counter.
According to the averments made in the counter, based on the report submitted by the Joint Director, Special Enforcement Bureau, SPSR Nellore District and also the contents of the case in FIR No.1/RCT-ACB-NLR/2022,
dated 02.02.2022 which was registered under Section 7(c) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, the 2nd respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings dated 02.02.2022. Further they have stated that the petitioner and two others were placed under suspension since 02.02.2022 and the suspension imposed on the petitioner and two others is to be reviewed on completion of six months, pending finalization of investigation/filing of charge sheet by the ACB authorities in the said case. In this context so as to review the suspension orders, information is required from the ACB officials, whether the enquiry proceedings against the AOs is finalized and cooperating with the prosecution agency etc. It is further stated that they will take appropriate action as per Rules on receipt of information from the ACB officials.
6. Based on the above averments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs.
Union of India through its Secretary and Another3, has categorically observed that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three(3) months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Charge Sheet is not served on the delin
