The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a government order suspending a public servant for over two years without issuing a charge memo, citing G.O.Ms.No.526 and Supreme Court precedent requiring reinstatement.
Petitioner reinstated into service with full back wages, continuity of service, and attendant benefits.
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.
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.8876 of 2020
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for the following relief:-
“ to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing G.O.Rt.No.1341, dated 05/12/2018 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by placing the Petitioner under suspension, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into services with all full backwages and also with continuity of service and all attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders … … .”
2
all the material allegations made in the petition and contended that the Government after examining the matter, has initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner herein, for misappropriating the Government fund pertaining to Seigniorage Grant to a tune of Rs.88,58,000/vide G.O.Rt.No.1403 , Panchyat Raj & Rural Development (Vigilance.I) Department, dated 24.12.2018. Simultaneously another proposal has been received from the 2nd respondent based on the report of 3rd respondent vide Rc CC.Spl.687/2018, dated 01.11.2018 regarding the misconduct committed by the petitioner while working as Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Nellore District i.e., unauthorized absence to the duty and collecting bribe from the unemployed
youth in the guise of providing employment etc. after examining the same, the Government vide the impugned proceedings dated 05.12.2018 had decided to place the petitioner under suspension and also vide government Memo No.8343/Vig.IV/A2/2018 dated 05.12.218 entrusted the matter to Vigilance Department for enquiry and to submit report.
It is further stated that the petitioner made representation to the Government on 4.8.2020 and the Government vide Memo No.1602/20/2018-Vig.IV(A2)-1, dated 04.09.2020 has reviewed the suspension order against the petitioner. However, considering the gravity of the allegations and as the petitioner is evading receiving the suspension order
3
and charge memo, the government has decided to continue the petitioner under suspension. Further, the case of the petitioner will be reviewed from time to time as required under APCS (CCA) Rules and a decision will be taken on continuation of the Charged Officer under suspension. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4
1 1999 LawSuit(SC) 406
5
is pending more than 2 and half year – The suspension cannot be continued particularly in a situation where other officers who are not under suspension may also be found involved – Appeal allowed – directed to reinstate with arrears of salary.”
“3. Accordingly, the Government, hereby, direct that the employees are under suspension for a period exceeding two years shall be reinstated pending finalization of the disciplinary cases/criminal cases against them. However, in exceptional cases, for example, where the charged officers are not cooperating for completion of investigation/inquiry or when the inquiry/ investigation could not be completed due to pendency of litigation, a Committee headed by the Secretary of the administrative Department, Head of the Department concerned and an official from the Anti Corruption Bureau (where the cases are emanated from Anti Corruption Bureau Investigation), shall review the orders of suspension against the employees who are continued under suspension well before completion of two years of suspension and take a decision to continue such employees under suspension beyond two years, duly recording the reasons for such a decision.”
6
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 18 -07-2022 Gvl
7
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.8876 of 2021
Date : 18.07.2022
Gvl
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a public servant charged with misconduct but not issued a charge memo within two years is entitled to reinstatement.
Whether suspension can be continued under G.O.Ms.No.526 without completing investigation within two years.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable to challenge suspension without charge sheet.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. Sukhendar Reddy vs. State of Andhra PradeshDistinguished¶21
K. Sukhendar Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1999 LawSuit(SC) 406
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Zilla Panchayat Officer (Petitioner)
Government of Andhra Pradesh
K. MANMADHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
