Muthyala Simhachalam, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh HCWP/19785/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
J WP No.19785 of 2019 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE…
What the court decided
AI extract
J WP No.19785 of 2019 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE…
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.19785 of 2019
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.19785 of 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in issuing suspension orders dated 07.10.2019, as illegal and arbitrary.
Case of the petitioner is that, she is working as a sweeper/public health worker in Kovvur Municipality on permanent basis; her daughterin-law committed suicide on 10.09.2019; basing on the complaint given by her daughter-in-law’s father, Cr.No.252 of 2019 was registered against the petitioner, her son and daughter for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of IPC; police arrested them on 13.09.2019 and petitioner was released on bail on 25.09.2019; basing on the report submitted by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent, without issuing any notice, the petitioner was suspended. Challenging the same, present writ petition is filed.
Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the charge sheet is not filed within 90 days and as there are no specific allegations against the petitioner, the impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the rule quoted in the impugned order i.e., ‘CCA Rules 1991, Section 8 (2)(b)’ is not applicable to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in ‘ P. Rajender vs. Union of India1 ’. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal before the
1 2001 (5) ALD 290
2
KVL, J WP No.19785 of 2019
competent authority and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Admittedly, non filing of the charge sheet within 90 days cannot be a ground to set aside the impugned suspension order. The second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Whether there is any specific allegation in the complaint filed against the petitioner or not, is not relevant at present, to set aside the suspension order. The admitted fact is that, the petitioner is an accused in the said crime and she was in judicial custody for substantial number of days. Rule 8 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘CCA Rules’) deals with suspension of a member of service. According to Rule 8(1)(c), a member of service may be placed under suspension, where a case against him/her in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial; according to Rule 8(1)(d), a member of service may be placed under suspension from service even if the offence does not have bearing on the discharge of his official duties. Quoting of Section 8(2)(b) of CCA rules, 1991, obviously is a mistake. However, when the authority has got power to suspend a member, merely quoting of wrong provision will not make an order invalid. The Commissioner has got power to suspend the petitioner under Rule 8(1)(c) of the CCA Rules 1991. Admittedly, in this case, the crime was registered against the petitioner and the same is under investigation. Hence, respondent authorities have got power to suspend the petitioner. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in P Rajender ’s case (supra), it was held ‘that suspension was bad, as the charge sheet was not filed within a reasonable time’. In the said case, crime was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under
3
KVL, J WP No.19785 of 2019
Sections 494 and 498-A of IPC. Charge sheet was filed on 24.11.1998 and the petitioner herein was suspended on 15.05.1999 i.e., after seven months after filing of the charge sheet.
In the present case, the alleged commission of offence was on 10.09.2019; petitioner was arrested on 13.09.2019 and was in judicial custody for a period of 27 days. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 07.10.2019. The alleged commission of offences registered against the petitioner in the present case is, under Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of IPC. The 2nd respondent, basing on the report of the 4th respondent, suspended the petitioner, as she was in judicial custody for a period of 27 days.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to interfere with the order of suspension. However, petitioner is given liberty to avail alternate remedy available to her under law against the impugned 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.19785 of 2019
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
Writ Petition No.19785 of 2019
42
Date: 16.12.2019
BSS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether suspension order is maintainable when charge sheet is not filed within 90 days and without specific allegations.
Whether misquoting a rule renders the impugned suspension order invalid.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Rajender vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶13
P. Rajender vs. Union of India
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
St. Rita East Asian College
Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
Parties & counsel