Dismissed

P Markhandeyulu v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Oct 2023WP/26574/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court observed that suspension is an interim measure during disciplinary proceedings requiring prima facie evidence before interference. The court declined to set aside the suspension orders but directed respondents to complete the enquiry within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to complete enquiry/disciplinary proceedings within three months; no order as to costs.

P Markhandeyulu Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.26574 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 suspension proceedings in Rc.No.112/2023/A(TW), dt.11.09.2023 issued by the 4^th respondent thereby suspended the petitioner from the post of Head Master (Grade-II) working in Government Tribal Welfare Ashram High School (Girls), Bhoomika village, Pathapatnam Mandal, Srikakulam District and consequential proceedings in Rc.No.112/2023/A(TW), dt.03.10.2023 thereby appointed inquiry officer to conduct enquiry on the allegations against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.23, dt.01.04.2011 issued by the 1^st respondent, violative of the provisions of A.P. Tribal Welfare Educational Service Rules, A.P. Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 1991 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dated 11.09.2023 and 03.10.2023 and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the post of Head Master (Grade-II) working in Government Tribal Welfare Ashram High School (Girls), Bommika village, Pathapatnam Mandal, Srikakulam District …”

¶7

Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing for the respondents.

¶8

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 08.10.1987 and posted at Vondrujola village in Seethampeta

¶9

¶10

Mandal. When the matter is being so, basing on the complaint made by one Sri D.Lakshmi Narayana, who claimed to be a President of Girijana Ikya Vedika, Srikakulam District, the 4^th respondent instructed the 5^th respondent, who is in subordinate rank to the petitioner, to conduct enquiry and submit report. Accordingly, the 5^th respondent conducted preliminary enquiry behind the back of the petitioner and submitted false report against the petitioner on 28.08.2023 and basing on the said false enquiry report, the 4^th respondent issued suspension proceedings in Rc.No.112/2023/A(TW), dt.11.09.2023 thereby suspended the petitioner from the post of Head Master (Grade-II) working in Government Tribal Welfare Ashram High school (Girls), Bommika Village, Pathapatnam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner is that the alleged enquiry report submitted by the 5^th respondent, who is sub-ordinate to the petitioner is illegal and impermissible under law and basing on which, the 3^rd respondent also issued another proceedings dated 03.10.2023 appointing an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to conduct final inquiry. Till today no charge memo is issued to the petitioner on the above false allegations and even the alleged enquiry report dt.28.08.2023 is also not served on

¶12

¶13

the petitioner and no opportunity is given to the petitioner to submit his explanation before issuing the above suspension order, therefore issuance of the above suspension order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.23, Social Welfare (TW.SER.III) Department, dt.01.04.2011, as per which the 3^rd respondent is the competent authority to initiate any disciplinary action against the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶14

Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the inquiry is under way and Article of Charges will be framed against the petitioner and the petitioner will be given an opportunity to present his case duly following the procedure.

¶15

The impugned order challenged before this court is nothing but suspension order pending disciplinary proceedings. Ordinarily, the Court should not interfere with orders of suspension unless they are 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 Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal , observed as follows:-

¶16

“ Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of

¶17

the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the

¶18

¶19

proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim 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 .”

¶20

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 is 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 three (03) Months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

__________________________ SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

Date: 18.10.2023 Pnr

137

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.26574 of 2023

¶29

Dated 18.10.2023

¶30

Pnr

P Markhandeyulu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Markhandeyulu v. the State of Ap

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

L.Suresh Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Durga Prasad, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kothapalli Ramalakshmi Vs the Eastern Power Distribution Company

C Naga Parimala Bai Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Muddana Eswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Syamala Devi Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps