Disposed

Amballa Srinivasa Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jul 2024WP/5816/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the illegal suspension of a petitioner beyond two years without valid reasons. The court held that while suspension violated procedural rules, the petitioner was already reinstated pending the order. Consequently, the court directed the disciplinary authority to conclude proceedings within four weeks and consider the petitioner's promotion ca

What did the court decide?

Directing the disciplinary authority to conclude proceedings within four weeks and consider the petitioner for promotion.

Amballa Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Juriadiction)

¶2

MONDAY. THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO Thousand AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5816 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Amballa Srinivasa Rao, S/o. A.Venkata Swamy Aged 48 years, Occ: Assistant Geologist, (under Order of Suspension) O/o.CEO, Merit, Ibrahimpatnam. Vijayawada, N.T.R, District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary^Industries and Commerce Department A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,^Amaravati Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

The Director of Mines and Geology, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada^N.T.R. District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development, Corporation Limited (APMDC Ltd), Vijayawada, N.T.R. District, Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director.

¶13

Committee of Suspension/Disciplinary cases.. Department^ofMinesand Geology, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District, Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Committee Chairman.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2^^ Respondent in continuing the petitioner under suspension beyond stipulated period of 2 years prescribed in G.O.Ms,No.526 General Administration (Services-C) Department dt. 19-08-2008 without being any valid reasonⁱⁿ the absence of any further proceedings is illegal, arbitrary, unjust^{andviolativeofArt.14}

¶16

AND16 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the

¶17

proceedings No. 2028/E1/2006 dt.04-11-2020 of the 2"“ respondent by

¶18

directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all consequential benefits.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service by suspending the proceedings No. 2028/E1/2006 dt.04-11-2020 of the 2""' respondent, pending disposal of the above writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 ; SRI T. BHEEMANNA, ASST.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI V.R.N. PRASHANTH The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶24

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.5816 of 2024

¶26

Amballa Srinivasa Rao, S/o A. Venkata Swamy, aged 48 years,. Occ: Assistant Geologist, (under Order of Suspension) O/o, CEO, Merit, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶27

... Petitioner

¶28

Versus

¶29

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and three others.

¶30

... Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. Kavitha Gottipati Counsel for respondents : GP for Services-ll and Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, standing counsel.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶33

"... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^onein the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action^ofthe 2'^^ Respondent in continuing the petitioner under suspension beyond stipulated period of 2 years prescribedⁱⁿ G.O.Ms.No.526 General Administration (Services-C) Department dt. 19-08-2008 without being any valid reasonⁱⁿ the absence of any further proceedings is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Art. 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings No.2028/

¶34

Page 2 of 9

¶35

SRSJ WP No.5816of 2024

¶36

El/2006 dated 04.11.2020 of the 2’’" respondent by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders ...”

¶37

The case of the petitioner is that while petitioner was working as Assistant Geologist in Mines and Geology Department, he was deputed to Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Vijayawada on 22.03.2019 and later, repatriated to the parent department, on 11.12.2019. Thereafter, based on the report of respondent No.3 respondent No.2, by exercising powers under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'the Rules’), suspended the petitioner v/cfe proceedings, dated 04.11.2020. Articles of charge were framed wcfe proceedings No.20284/E4/2006 dated 27.11.2020 and reply/explanation was submitted to the Articles of charge on 14.12.2020. Thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed wc/e proceedings No.2028/E1/2006 dated 15.04.2021. Enquiry^Officer recorded petitioner’s statement on 10.06.2022 and immediately submitted inquiry report to respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2 failed to take further action on submission of the inquiry report. The petitioner made representation dated 05.01.2024, requesting to reinstate and drop the proceedings.

¶38

Page 3 of 9

¶39

SRSJ WP No.5816of 2024

¶40

However, the same was not considered. Hence, the above writ petition.

¶41

Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, wherein the authority has not disputed regarding suspension of the petitioner, framing of Articles of charges, submission of explanation by the petitioner, appointment of Enquiry Officer and submission of report by Enquiry Officer, on 13.06.2022. In para (9) of the counter affidavit, respondent No.2 stated that due to heavy aditiinistration work load and more administrative responsibilities, there was delay in taking proper decision and said delay is neither willful nor wanton.

¶42

Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner: Sri T. Bheemanna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - II for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Sri V.R.N. Prashanth, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though Enquiry Officer submitted report on 13.06.2022, respondent^No.2 being the Disciplinary Authority did not pass appropriate^orders due to which, petitioner was denied promotion and his juniors were promoted. Learned counsel would further submit that as per

¶44

Page 4 of 9

¶45

SRSJ WP No.5816of 2024

¶46

G.O.Ms.No.526 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008, the period of suspension, pending enquiry, cannot be continued for more than two years, without there being valid reason. She would further submit that having reinstated the petitioner, pending writ petition respondents ought to have considered petitioner’s case for promotion. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, while elaborating the arguments as per the. averments in the counter affidavit, submitted that since petitioner is reinstated in services, the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶47

This writ petition was listed on 06.03.2024, for the first time and at request of learned Assistant Government Pleader and standing counsel, it was adjourned. When the matter was listed on 12.03.2024, learned Single Judge, in view of the ambiguity in the earlier instructions, directed the Director of Mines and Geology i.e. respondent No.2.to submit proper instructions on or before 14.03.2024 and adjourned the matter to 14.03.2024. On 18.03.2024, learned Single Judge of this Court, by considering the delay in passing orders, passed a detailed docket order. Learned Single Judge, after recording reasons, issued show cause notice to respondent No.2 to submit explanation, as to why

¶48

Page 5 of 9

¶49

SRSJ WP No.5816 bf2024

¶50

disciplinary proceedings shall not be initiated in^{accordancewith} Rules for dereliction of duties.

¶51

Petitioner was reinstated into services vide proceedings NO.2028/E1/2006 dated 14.03.2024, even before passing^ofthe order, dated 18.03.2024. Petitioner joined services on 27.03.2024.

¶52

As seen from the material available on record, petitioner was kept under suspension since 04.11.2020. Inquiry report was submitted to respondent No.2 on 13.06.2022. However,^noorder was passed by respondent No.2. The reason assigned by respondent No.2 qua the delay in para No.9 of the counter affidavit is as follows;

¶53

“ I humbly submit that the committee members of the Review are entrusted with various duties and responsibilities. Likewise, I was also entrusted with various duties and responsibilities as Director of Mines and Geology Department. Further I was also entrusted with office of Chairman & Managing Director of A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., (APMMDC), Vijayawada. Due to heavy administrative work load and more administrative responsibilities, there is a delay in taking proper decisions, which delay is neither^willful ' nor wanton.”

¶54

Page 6 of 9

¶55

SRSJ WP No.5816 of 2024

¶56

It is very unfortunate that respondent No.2 being the Disciplinary Authority, ignored to consider the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and squat on the report nearly for two years. Such a course adopted by the authority is highly reprehensive.

¶57

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India’, held that currency of the suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee and if the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of suspension.

¶58

In G.O.Ms.No.526 dated. 19.08.2008, issued by the Chief Secretary to Government, it was indicated that the employees, who are under suspension exceeding two years, shall, be reinstated, pending finalization of the disciplinary cases/criminal cases against them. In exceptional cases where the charged Cfficers are not co-operating for completion of investigation / inquiry or when the investigation/inquiry could not be completed due to pendency of litigation, a Committee headed by the

¶59

AIR 2015 SC 2389

¶60

Page 7 of 9

¶61

SRSJ WP No.5816 of 2024

¶62

Secretary of the administrative Department, Head of the Department concerned and an official from the Anti-Corruption Bureau (\A/here 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^adecision to continue such employees under suspension beyond two years, duly recording the reasons for such a decision.

¶63

Subsequently Chief Secretary to Government issued G.O.Ms.No.22 General .Administration (SER-C) Department, dated 29.02.2024, modifying two years of the outer limit of suspension of Government Servant, as one year.

¶64

In the case at hand though report was submitted on 13.06.2022, as indicated st/pz-a, respondent No.2 squat^on the inquiry report without passing any orders and indeed no review was conducted by the authority. There is no dispute that petitioner was reinstated in the. services, pending the writ petition. 15. Considering the fact that petitioner was reinstated, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to conclude disciplinary proceedings within a period of four weeks from today.

¶65

Page 8 of 9

¶66

SRSJ WP No.5816of 2024

¶67

The 2''"^ respondent, since'thesi authority squat on the inquiry report nearly for, two years, shall also consider the petitioner’s case for promotion, subject to the Rules and Regulations, The 2^^' respondent also shall consider entitlement of the benefits, Ifi any, to the petitioner, i in accordance with Rules in vogue. No costs.

¶68

As a sequel stand closed. pending miscellaneous petitions it any, shall Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //true copy//

¶69

I.ECTION OFFICER

¶70

¶71