THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.27545 of 2024 AND CONTEMPT CASE NO.118 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Since both these matters are inter se related with each other, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order.

2) Heard Sri Kranthi Kumar Kuchana, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri M.Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in Contempt Case, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents in both the matters.

3) Seeking to declare the action respondent No.3 in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.A1/703/2024, dated 15.03.2024, placing the petitioner under suspension without revoking as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1991 and consequently set aside the same, Writ Petition No.27545 of 2024 is filed.

4) On 29.10.2024, this Court, while granting interim suspension of the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 has directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith.

5) Alleging willful disobedience of the said order by the respondents, the petitioner has filed C.C.No.118 of 2025.

6) Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has contended that while the petitioner was working as Tahsildar at Jammikunta, Karimnagar District, she was arrested in connection with crime No.01/ACB-RCA-KNR/2024 of PS ACB, Karimnagar Range, registered for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for possessing disproportionate assets. On the same day, the ACB authorities have taken the petitioner into custody, produced before Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate for SPE & ACB Court, Karimnagar and she was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, vide order dated 22.04.2024 in Crl.P.No.3994/2024 she was granted bail by this Court. Learned counsel has further submitted that based on the recommendations of the DSP-ACB, Karimnagar, through Radio message, the District Collector, Karimnagar, has placed the petitioner under suspension vide impugned order dated 15.03.2024 and she was continued under suspension without any revocation, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of CCA Rules. Learned counsel has further contended that the properties of all the family members of the petitioner were shown in the petitioner’s account and there are fundamental flaws in assessing the alleged disproportionate assets and ex facie the figures were arrived by the Investigating Agency on numerical but not on consideration of facts. It is further contended that the petitioner was implicated in the criminal case by the Investigating Agency by not taking into consideration the earnings of other family members. It is further contended that the petitioner was suspended on 15.03.2004 and even after completion of more than six months, the suspension of the petitioner was not ratified by the competent authority i.e. respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 lacks jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension. As per Rule 13 of Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, provides limited power to the District Collector to place the petitioner under suspension for not more than three months and in order to continue suspension beyond three months, the District Collector has to obtain approval from the Commissioner concerned i.e. respondent No.2 herein and so far the suspension is not ratified as required under the law. While placing reliance on Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India1, the learned counsel has contended that currency of suspension order should not exceed beyond three months even within six months period, the Memorandum of Charges is not served on the delinquent officer/employee and if the Memorandum of Charge Sheet is served

1 (2015) 7 SCC 291

a reasoned order should be passed for extension of suspension. Learned counsel has further submitted that in case of the petitioner, though the ACB authorities registered the crimi