Partly allowed

Chunduru Prasanna Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Dec 2020WP/23593/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the High Court set aside the respondent department's review order which continued the petitioner's suspension withoutReasons, directing the authority to pass a reasoned order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned review order dismissed; second respondent directed to pass reasoned order within two weeks.

Chunduru Prasanna Kumar, Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.23593 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

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

¶4

“to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, questioning the proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.643, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department (VC.1) Department, dated 22.11.2019 issued by the 1^st respondent wherein the petitioner was placed under suspension and the consequential proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.375, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department (VC.1) Department, dated 25.08.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent wherein petitioner’s suspension order was reviewed and rejected without mentioning any reasons and declare the same as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the settled legal position, apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith and pass such other order.”

¶5

As seen from the record the petitioner while working as District Coordinator of Hospital Services, Guntur, he was implicated in Cr.No.11/RCT-ACB-GNT/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of PC Act, dated 20.11.2019 and thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.643, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department (VC.1) Department, dated 22.11.2019 issued by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities requesting them to cancel his suspension, reinstate him into service, as the investigation is almost completed, statements of witnesses were recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C and he

¶6

¶7

will not interfere with the investigation, but the same is not considered and no action was taken on his representation by the respondents. The 2^nd respondent has issued the proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.375, dated 25.08.2020, wherein the petitioner’s suspension was reviewed and decided to continue his suspension.

¶8

The impugned order of review of suspension and extension of suspension is without any reasons and it is contrary to the judgment in the case of Ajay Choudhary Vs Union of India and thereby the order of review of suspension is to be set aside and requested to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶9

During the course of hearing, Sri P.V.N.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the review order is bereft of any reasons and it is contrary to the law laid down in Ajay Choudhary ’s case (referred supra) and requested to pass appropriate order. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Services-III supported the impugned order in all respects.

¶10

As seen from the material available on record more particularly the impugned order, the 2^nd respondent did not record any specific reason though they are under obligation to record reasons in terms of the judgment in Ajay Choudhary ’s case (referred supra) and it is also one of the facts of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of review of suspension dated 25.08.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent is contrary to the law and the same is hereby set aside while directing the 2^nd respondent to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶11

¶12

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There

¶13

shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶15

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

Date: 23.12.2020 Note: Issue CC by 29.12.2020 B/o. IS

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.23593 OF 2020

¶20

Date: 23-12-2020 Note: Issue CC by 29.12.2020 B/o. IS

Chunduru Prasanna Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chunduru Prasanna Kumar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Venkatesh Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

CherukuruBabavalli, Vs The Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration

Yettapu Padmavathamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Ramana Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolli Ravi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanchumarthi Sarojini Devi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh