Allowed

M.Jaya Ramulu v. The Election Commission of India

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2024WA/152/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ appeal challenging the suspension of a Tahsildar in Andhra Pradesh. The bench held that the investigation was at a nascent stage and contained no material implicating the petitioner, who was not named in the FIR. The suspension was set aside, and he was directed to resume duties.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the suspension order, quash the proceedings against the petitioner, and direct him to resume duties in his erstwhile post.

M.Jaya Ramulu Vs The Election Commission of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

<br>

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO: 152 OF 2024

¶6

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order Dt.30-01-2024 in W.P. No. 2072 of 2024 on the file of the High Court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

M.Jaya Ramulu, S/o Venkataiah, aged 61 years, Worked^{asAdministrative} Officer-Collectorate, Tirupati-Under Suspension, R/o Flat No. 303, Rajgeeth Towers, Avilala, Tirupati, Chittoor District.

¶9

...Appellant/Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The Election Commission of India, Rep by its Chief^{ElectionCommissioner,} New Delhi.

¶12

The Chief Electoral Officer-Principal, Secretary^{toGovernmentofAP,Office} of the Chief Election Officer, Building No.5, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Village, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District.

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Chief^{CommissionerofLand} Administration, A.P Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

¶14

The District Collector-Cum-District Election Officer, Tirupati District, Tirupati.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Tirupati District, Tirupati

¶16

The Municipal Commissioner, Tirupati Municipal Corporation, Tirupati.

¶17

The Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban.

¶18

...Respondents/Respondents

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the suspension order of the 3^^^ Respondent the proceedings vide CCCLAs Progs rd No.REV02/28/20/2024 (e-2329155) dated 19-01-2024 by declaring the 3'*^ respondent proceedings vide CCCLAs Progs No.REVO2/28/20/2024(e- 2329155) dated 19-01-2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 309 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the conduct rules and consequently direct the Respondents to revoke the

¶21

"-t

¶22

suspension order of the 3^^^ respondent, also direct the Respondent not to take any criminal proceedings against the Petitioner without proper material by allowing W.P.

¶23

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G.SIMHADRI

¶24

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4: SRI D S SIVADARSHAN,^SCFOREC

¶25

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 7: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for Respondent No.5: GP FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for Respondent No.6: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA, SC for MUNICIPALITIES

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

¶30

¶31

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶32

AND

¶33

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶34

WRIT APPEAL N0.152 of 2024

¶35

JUDGMENT:- (per Sri Justice G.Narendar)

¶36

Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 6^^ RespondentMunicipal Corporation and Sri D. S. Sivadarshan, learned^counsel appearing on behalf of Election Commission.

¶37

The Intra-Court Appeal is directed against the order^ofthe learned Single Judge rendered in W.P.No.2072 of 2024, disposed of on 30.01.2024, whereby the learned single Judge rejected the prayer of the Writ Petitioner by accepting the contention^ofthe Respondents that the Petitioner has been charged with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 409, 109 read with 34 IPC and Section 66-D, 66-E, 66 read^with43of Information Technology Act and as a sequel to the registration^of FIR, the Impugned Order has been passed suspending the Writ Petitioner.

¶38

For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to by their nomenclature in the Writ Petition.

¶39

¶40

The case of the Writ Petitioner in a nutshell is that certain duplicate Election Identity cards were generated from the Tahsildar Office, Tirupati Urban and Tirupati District. The Petitioner who is a Tahsildar was also appointed as Election Deputy Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal and is presently discharging duties as Tahsildar, Office of Tahsildar Urban, Tirupati Urban. The persons who are named in the FIR and in the Enquiry Report are three Data Entry Operators. Serious allegations are levelled against the said three Data Entry Operators and they have also by their statements admitted^that the credentials of ERO Net Logins were known only to^them.The statements of the three Data Entry Operators as on today stands and it has not been demonstratedto be incorrect or erroneous or false.

¶41

A perusal of the FIR would corroborate the petitioner's contention that the names of only three Data Entry Operators find a place in the FIR and they would also take us through the material documents at Page No.29 being the report of^theDistrict Collector & District Election Officer of Tirupati, who, though has enquired into the role of the petitioner and the Deputy Tahsildar, has not identified or assigned any role to the petitioner.^Onthe

¶42

¶43

¶44

Other hand, the report clearly indicts the three Data Entry Operators, as the persons who were directly associated and given the responsibility of operating the software, namely^theERONet 2.0 version, necessary for downloading the EPIC Cards.^Itisalso pertinent to note that the prima facie conclusion of^theCollector is premised on the alleged admission of the three Data Entry Operators, that they alone where in the possession of the login credentials.

¶45

If the above be the prima facie case, then the role^ofthe petitioner is nowhere to be seen. Merely because of^thefactthat the petitioner was working in the same office, it cannot be a ground to infer any misconduct much less a criminal^conduct.

¶46

We have perused the reports and the statements and^ithas been the categorical stand of the petitioner that he is neither aware of the login credentials nor has he ever operated the system. There is no other material to contradict the stand, as neither the reports nor the statements attribute any^roletothe petitioner. In fact, a perusal of the FIR also would^demonstrate that the petitioner is not one of the accused persons^whohave been named in the FIR.

¶47

¶48

The learned Government Pleader for Services I and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.6 Municipal Corporation would fairly submit that, as on today,^{nomaterialhas} been unearthed, demonstrating any act on* the part of the petitioner whereby it could be inferred that the petitioner^has been involved in the Criminal Act of generating duplicate EPIC Cards.

¶49

Be that as it may, it is seen that the investigation^isstillat a nascent stage, though more than a month has passed by and what the investigation would throw up is not for this^Courtto guess. As on today, we see no material which prima^facieindicts the petitioner. If that be the case, in our considered view, the act of placing the petitioner under suspension is unjustified and unwarranted. It cannot be gainfully argued, that placing of a Government Servant under suspension would cause no prejudice. N Definitely the act of being placed under suspension^wouldlower the standing of the Government Servant in the eyes of his peers and his family members. In that view also, we are of the considered opinion that the order warrants interference. The learned Single Judge has erroneously appreciated the^FIRand concluded that the petitioner is one of the accused persons.

¶50

¶51

Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge in our^considered opinion stands vitiated.

¶52

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The Impugned Order of Suspension Proceedings vide CCLAs Progs No.REV02/28/20/2024 (e-2329155), dated 19.01.2024 issued by the 3”^^ Respondent is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be permitted to resume duties in his erstwhile post.

¶53

In the event any material is obtained during the course^of investigation, it shall always be open for the Respondents^totake such action as they deem necessary and strictly in^accordance with law.

¶54

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending^inthis

¶55

Writ Appeal shall stand closed.

¶56

<br>

¶57

To,

¶58

Sd/- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTlt5N OFFICER

¶59

¶60

One CC to Sri G Simhadri, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri D S Sivadarshan, SC for EC [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy, SC for Municipalities [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies RAM gi

HIGH COURT

DATED:16/02/2024

ORDER

WA.No.152of2024

S •(iX

ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

M.Jaya Ramulu v. The Election Commission of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jaya Ramulu v. The Election Commission of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Karimullah Hussain, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. P. Ravi Kumar Vs Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University

The Guntur District Cooperative Central Bank Limited Vs Guntupalli Sambasiva Rao

Andhra Christian College Vs Madugula Sarada

Chinnamsetty Raju, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinnamsetty Raju, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh