Allowed

Bavigadda Babu v. Rayalaseema University

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Oct 2023WP/26033/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged suspension order alleging fake qualification certificates and violation of natural justice. Court applied principles governing suspension, held order was interim, and directed respondents to complete disciplinary enquiry in eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; directions to respondents to complete enquiry/disciplinary proceedings within eight weeks.

Bavigadda Babu Vs Rayalaseema University — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.26033 of 2023

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article

¶5

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents No.1 to 3 in issuing the impugned proceedings No. RUK/Estt./Non-Teaching/Certificates/Non-genuine/ Suspension/2023 dated 08.05.2023 suspending the Petitioner on the pretext of submitting fake certificate of qualification without issuing any notice or verifying the certificates of the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, vindictive and violative of principles of natural justice …”

¶7

Heard Sri G.Arun Showri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Y.Ratna Prabha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University as well as learned Government Pleader for Services III.

¶8

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Office Subordinate on daily wage basis vide proceedings dated 05.11.2014. When the matter is being so, the petitioner received impugned proceedings dated 08.05.2023 of the 2^nd respondent, through which the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect, until further orders and disciplinary proceedings in the matter, for submitting fake certificate of qualification. Thereafter, the

¶9

¶10

petitioner submitted various representations to the 3^rd respondent informing that he has submitted genuine original certificate at the time of his appointment and requested to inquire once again into the issue by revoking suspension orders.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, on oral instructions, submitted that the respondents are taking steps to conduct enquiry in pursuance of the present impugned suspension orders.

¶12

The main grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the representations made by the petitioner, the respondents failed to reconsider his case. The impugned order challenged before this court is nothing but suspension order pending disciplinary proceedings and that too passed in the month of May.

¶13

Ordinarily, the Court should not interfere with orders of suspension unless they are passed mala fide and without there being even prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in question. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision passed in Union Of India and Another

¶14

Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal , observed as follows:-

¶15

“ Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim

¶16

¶17

measure in aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the court may find out as which version is true when there are claims and counter claims on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review .”

¶18

In view of the above observation and it is also a fact that the impugned suspension orders are not final orders, as it is not a punishment, therefore, this court not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. However, this court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to complete the enquiry/disciplinary proceedings within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶19

Accordingly, with the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶21

SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶22

Date: 09.10.2023 Pnr

Bavigadda Babu v. Rayalaseema University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bavigadda Babu v. Rayalaseema University

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

Sirla Ananda Rao Vs the State of Ap

S Koti Bai Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Palaparthi Jacob Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Chandra Sekharappa Vs the State of Ap

N Chinna Reddaiah Vs the State of Ap

Simma Jhansi Rani Vs the State of Ap