The High Court rejected the writ petition challenging the petitioner's suspension for alleged dereliction of duty in NREGS works, noting the existence of an appeal remedy and dismissing the plea as not applicable to facts.
Liberty granted to file appeal before appellate authority to be disposed of within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
KVL, J WP No.13252 of 2019
.HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.13252 of 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed ‘to declare the proceedings dated 22.08.2019 of the 2nd respondent placing the petitioner under suspension, as illegal and arbitrary’.
Case of the petitioner is that, he is working as Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO) since 2007; he was placed under suspension on 22.08.2019 on the ground of dereliction and negligence of duty in execution of works under MGNREGS; but at the relevant point of time, he worked as MPDO, Peapully Mandal and as MPDO, he is also Programme Officer under NREGS works in the Mandal; procedure for execution and audit of the NREGS works is governed by Circular dated 19.09.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.148 dated 29.06.2011; as per the rules and the Circular, the audit for the NREGS works has to be conducted once in every six months; the social audit, which ought to have been conducted for every six months, was conducted only in December, for the financial year 2017-18 i.e., after nine months and it was alleged that the petitioner was responsible for dereliction or non execution of works to a tune of Rs.37,284/-; petitioner has remitted the said amount to the official account of the Commissioner, Rural Development; there is no allegation of misappropriation of funds against the petitioner and hence, the impugned order of suspension has been passed without application of mind; the issue relates to Peapully Mandal and the petitioner was transferred from Peapully Mandal in March, 2018 itself to Tuggalli Mandal; again he was transferred and posted to Gonegandla Mandal in July, 2019, which is 140 KMs away from Peapully Mandal; in Peapully
2
KVL, J WP No.13252 of 2019
Mandal, there are 26 gram panchayats and works were carried out in all 26 gram panchayats and for each gram Panchayat, there are employees of five categories at grass root level i.e., Field Assistants, Technical Assistant, computer Operators, Engineering consultants and additional programme officers; petitioner being the head of the Mandal can rely upon the subordinate officers and staff. Hence, the writ petition.
Counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent stating inter-alia that the petitioner is responsible for all the lapses and irregularities and hence, disciplinary action against all the concerned field functionaries along with the petitioner had been initiated by the District Collector.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in ‘ Mahendra Kumar Tayal vs. State of Uttaranchal ’ in WP No.129 of 2005 dated 15.12.2005, wherein the High Court of Uttaranchal observed that, ‘in the first case, the proper conduct of enquiry and disciplinary proceedings can be ensured by a mere transfer the officer; only in the second case, the officer need be placed under suspension. Hence, it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to consider whether a transfer of the officer will be sufficient or whether suspension itself is required. Only when the disciplinary authority is satisfied that suspension itself is required, an officer can be placed under suspension’. He also relied upon the judgment in ‘ Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vs. Tarak Nath Ghosh1 ’, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that ‘the reputation of an officer is equally valuable no matter whether he belongs to the All India Service or to one of a humbler cadre. It is the exigency of the conditions of service which requires or calls for an order of suspension and there can be no difference, in regard to this matter as
1 AIR 1971 SC 823
3
KVL, J WP No.13252 of 2019
between a member of, an All India Service and a member of a State Service or a Railway Service.”
Both the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. As seen from the impugned order, the Commissioner has informed that as per the report of the District Collector, the petitioner, who was the then MPDO, committed irregularities due to dereliction of duties. A perusal of the letter dated 17.04.2019 of the District Collector to the Director of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, petitioner was called for an enquiry on 31.01.2019, but the petitioner requested 15 days time for submission of his defence statement and accordingly, he was given time up to 15.02.2019.
As the impugned order is only a suspension pending enquiry and as the petitioner has got alternate remedy of appeal against the impugned order, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of suspension. However, the petitioner is given liberty to avail alternate remedy of filing of an appeal against the suspension order before the appellate authority and if such an appeal is filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority, the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
__________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J
Date: 16.12.2019 BSS
4
KVL, J WP No.13252 of 2019
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.13252 of 2019
47
Date: 16.12.2019
BSS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the suspension order pending enquiry placed on the petitioner.
Whether the suspension is necessary given the nature of the allegations.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahendra Kumar Tayal vs. State of UttaranchalDistinguished¶12
Mahendra Kumar Tayal vs. State of Uttaranchal in WP No.129 of 2005 dated 15.12.2005
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vs. Tarak Nath GhoshDistinguished¶12
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vs. Tarak Nath Ghosh
KVL
Commissioner
Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
