ORDER:

This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

<....to issue a Writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.3 in issuing the orders of suspension vide No.A1/2376/2021 dated 20.07.2021 and the action of the 2nd respondent in not ratifying the orders of suspension, as arbitrary, illegal and in contravention of the provisions of A.P.Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1991 and set aside the orders of suspension issued by Respondent No.3 vide No.A1/2376/2021 dated 20.07.2021 and it is further prayed to this Hon’ble Court, pending disposal of the writ petition, consequently to direct the Respondent No.3 to draw and pay the subsistence allowance, with 6% percent interest on the period of non-payment of subsistence allowance.=

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent vide Ref.No.A1/2376/2021, dated 20.07.2021 on the recommendation of Sub-Collector, Rajampet, vide Ref.No.A1/1245/2021, dated 29.06.2021 and 06.07.2021. The petitioner was not communicated with the approval of Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue for extension of suspension beyond the period of three months as well as ratification orders. Though he filed appeal before the 2nd respondent on 06.08.2021 seeking revocation of orders of suspension, the same was rejected, without considering his explanation, vide proceedings No.Vigilance/VSII(1)/ 446/2021-4, dated 17.1.2022. Against the said order, he filed review petition on 10.02.2022 and it is pending.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that suspension of the writ petition is against the Rules, 1991 and G.O.Ms.No.480, General Administration Department, dated 7.9.1990, which mandates that in the case of Gazetted Officer, the first review of the order of suspension beyond a period of six months shall be undertaken by the Head of the Department. He was not paid subsistence allowance, which is against the principles of natural justice and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdamba Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P.1 held that payment of subsistence allowance, in accordance with the Rules to an employee under suspension, is not a bounty. Hence, the writ petition.

4. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit reiterating the facts as averred in the writ petition and further contended that the petitioner though informed over phone to furnish non-employment certificate for the suspension period, for which he claimed subsistence allowance as per the above circular instructions, he has not turned up to submit the same to enable the DDO, Sub- Collector’s Office, to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. The said allowance would be drawn and paid soon after receipt of non-employment certificate from the petitioner.

5. Heard Mr.T.Vijay Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

Perused the material papers on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Rule 13 of the A.P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the 3rd respondent / District Collector has power to place the Tahsildar under suspension for a period of three months; and if the suspension period has to be extended beyond the period

1 ) (2000) 5 Supreme 650

of three months, he has to take approval of the Commissioner of Land Revenue. In the case of petitioner, approval of Commissioner of Land Revenue was not communicated to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a copy of CCLA’s Procg.No.VS.II(1)/224/2014, dated 11.03.2022, where under one Mr.B.Maheswara Reddy, Tahsildar, was reinstated into service with immediate effect, pending finalization of disciplinary action.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in the case of L.Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh an