Siddhabatthula Vara Prasad Rao Vs the State of Ap

SIDDHABATTHULA VARA PRASAD RAO, S/O LATE SEETHARAMA RAJU, AGE 46 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS TOWN PLANNING OFFICER AT PALASA KASIBUGGA MUNICIPALITY, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (VIG-I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DIRECTORATE OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MGM CAPITAL, GROUND FLOOR, NRI HOSPITAL, JUNCTION MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AMRAVATI.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

2

¶17

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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature in WRIT of MANDAMUS to declare the 1st Respondents Impugned Supension Order G.O.Rt.No.709 Dated 23.7.2025 thereby illegally suspended the Petitioners services as Town Planning Officer in arbitrary manner with political venegence and malafide which is highly illegal, arbirary, pervasive, unjust vindicative,violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of Constitution of India and against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently setaside the aforementioned impugned Order of Suspension and reinstate the Petitioners services as Town Planning Officer and to pass

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Suspend the Impugned Supension Order of Petitioner G.O.Rt.No.709 Dated 23.7.2025 and reinstate the Petitioner services as Town Planning Officer and to pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.S SRINIVASA RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

3

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶27

W.P.No.20045 of 2025

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of Respondent

¶30

No.1 in issuing suspension order vide G.O.Rt.No.709 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (VIG.1) Department dated 23.07.2025 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

The facts leading to filing of this case are that the Petitioner is working as Town Planning Officer, Palasa, Kasibugga Municipality and previously worked as Town Planning Officer, Visakhapatnam in the year 2021. It is stated that a building plan was obtained through APDPMS for construction of commercial building consisting of basement, ground floor plus four upper floors vide building plan BA No.1086/3055/B/Z5/GAD/2019 dated 21.12.2019. As there were no setbacks to the building, notices were said to have been issued under Section 452 of the Municipal Corporation Act and thereafter, notice under Section 636 of the Municipal Corporation Act was issued for removing the deviations. Finally, the Commissioner passed a confirmation order directing to remove the deviation portion in the early hours

¶32

4

¶33

of 25.04.2021. Basing on the order of the Commissioner, the demolition was undertaken.

¶34

A writ petition being W.P.No.11240 of 2021 was filed by the aggrieved individuals questioning the demolition and a detailed counter affidavit was filed by Municipal Corporation GVMC along with material papers including issuance of notice etc., and it is further stated that the deviation portion of the construction was removed as per the existing rules and regulations.

¶35

Subsequently, the Petitioner was transferred to Palasa, Kasibugga Municipality. While so, on a further complaint given by the public representative of Gajuwaka on 29.01.2025, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 03.04.2025 stating that the Officials of GVMC did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1965 for issuance of notice through UCIMS portal and also not circulated the prescribed rules.

¶36

In view of the preliminary enquiry report, the Petitioner was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 23.07.2025. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was specifically averred that the demolition of the building was as per

¶37

5

¶38

the orders of the Municipal Commissioner and as per the Office note in BA No.1086/3055/B/Z5/GAD/2019 dated 23.04.2021 to make necessary arrangements like Police protection etc., but no action was taken on the Municipal Commissioner. It was further stated that the impugned order of suspension is contrary to the counter affidavit filed by GVMC in W.P.No.11240 of 2021 filed by the Petitioner.

¶39

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would submit that the suspension was passed after taking into consideration the preliminary enquiry report holding that the procedures prescribed under the Statute were not followed and the enquiry is also dealt with at Government level.

¶40

Heard Sri S.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

¶41

In W.P.No.11240 of 2021, the then Commissioner of GVMC filed a detailed counter affidavit running into 15 pages explaining the encroachments on the road portions and deviations in the building that was demolished. It is further stated therein that the title of the Petitioners is not available to the property and that there was suppression of facts. The relevant

¶42

6

¶43

portion of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.11240 of 2021 is extracted below as they are relevant with regard to the inconsistent stands being taken in the impugned proceedings.

¶44

‘6. It is submitted that the record further reveals that as the proposed site situated adjacent to existing '200' feet master plan road and a short fall notice has been issued dated 07-01-2020 for execution of gift deed in respect of road widening portion as the existing '200' feet master plan road was earmarked and proposed for '266' feet road. It is submitted that the petitioners have executed a gift deed in favour of the respondent corporation in respect of site an extent of 272.00 sq.yards covered by sy.no.5/1 in favour of respondent corporation by way of gift deed dated 31-1-2020 as the proposed site is getting affected in the master plan road widening.

¶45

7. It is submitted that while so, in the month of April, 2021 during outdoor inspection it was noticed by the staff of the respondent corporation that proceedings with the construction unauthorisedly deviating the setbacks and also encroaching the road widening portion contrary to the sanctioned plan. It is submitted that as the petitioners were proceedings with the construction unauthorisedly contrary to the sanctioned plan the staff of the respondent corporation had requested the petitioners orally not to proceed with the construction unauthorisedly but, they did not heed the request of the respondent corporation and as such the respondent corporation had issued a notice under section 452 of GHMC Act, dated 15-04-2021 and the staff of the respondent corporation had tried to serve the said notice to

¶46

7

¶47

the petitioners but, they have refused to receive the same and as such the staff of the respondent corporation i.e., the Chainmen and planning secretary have affixed the 452 notice dated 15-4-2021 on the wall of the unauthorised construction premises and the same was endorsed by the neighbours of the proposed premises wherein the petitioners were directed to submit their explanation within 7 days for the deviations in respect of setbacks and also the unauthorized construction in the road widening portion. It is submitted that the petitioners did not choose to submit their explanation to the 452 notice dated 15-4-2021and a such the respondent corporation had issued 636 notice dated 224-2021 directing the petitioners to remove the unauthorized construction and also the deviated portion in respect of setbacks the petitioners have also refused to receive the 636 notice 22-4-2021 and as such the same was also affixed on the wall of premises. It is submitted that despite 636 notice was issued the petitioners did not remove the portion of the unauthorized construction. It is submitted that as the petitioners did not remove the unauthorized construction the respondent corporation has removed unauthorized structures of the building road widening portion and also removed the unauthorized structure in respect of setbacks i.e., front setback but, could not remove the rare setback, side open setback-1 and side open setback-2as there is no space left by the petitioners in respect of side setbacks as there is no access to move vehicle that itself is evident to show that the petitioners have deviated the side setbacks.

¶48

8

¶49

16. It is submitted that however the respondent corporation would take steps to revoke the building permission as they obtained the online building permission by placing fake document of the regularization proceedings dated 20-1-2010 and unregistered documents of sale deed without having any title over the land covered by sy.no.5/1 and 5/3 of Gajuwak. It is submitted that the petitioners having obtained online building permission suppressing the above said material facts and proceeded the construction unauthorisedly and the respondent corporation had demolished the unauthorized construction made by the petitioners after issuing notice only and the petitioners having refused to take 452 notice dt.15-04-2021 and having failed to comply the same and filed the above writ petition with all faise allegations alleging that the demolition was made without issuing notice which is factually and legally incorrect. It is submitted that in acatena of judgments this Hon'ble court and the Hon'ble Apex was pleased to held that the unauthorized constructions shall not be allowed as reported in 2007(6) ALD 356, 2013(4) ALD 161, 1999(6) SCC 464, AIR 1991 SC 1453, 1990(2) ALT 514,2007 (2) ALT 410 and as such the allegations made by the petitioners that the structures raised by the petitioners are lawful cannot be sustained.’

¶50

In the instructions furnished by the learned Assistant Government Pleader nor in the impugned order of suspension, there is any mention that building in question was being constructed as per building plan BA

¶51

9

¶52

No.1086/3055/B/Z5/GAD/2019 dated 21.12.2019, but the only reason for the suspension is that demolition is without following procedure. This reasoning runs contrary to the counter affidavit in W.P.No.11240 of2021. Further, the order of demolition was passed the Commissioner, GVMC and Petitioner only carried out the orders. The counter affidavit states that notices under Sections 452 and 636 were issued and then demolition was carried out. No other statutory procedure was pointed out that was violated.

¶53

It is well settled that suspension is issued only when a strong prima facie case is made out and leading to serious charges against the delinquent, but cannot be used as a weapon after change of circumstances. Further, there is no possibility of tampering of evidence as the entire procedure is borne out of record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal’¹ held as under:

¶54

21. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there,

¶55

1 (2013) 16 SCC 147

¶56

10

¶57

or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. The authority should also take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry.

¶58

22. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that suspension order can be passed by the competent authority considering the gravity of the alleged misconduct i.e. serious act of omission or commission and the nature of evidence available. It cannot be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness, or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public interest due to the employee's continuation in office is also a relevant and determining factor. The facts of each case have to be taken into consideration as no formula of universal application can be laid down in this regard. However, suspension order should be passed only where there is a strong prima facie case against the delinquent, and if the charges stand proved, would ordinarily warrant imposition of major punishment i.e. removal or dismissal from service, or reduction in rank, etc.

¶59

27. 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 measure in the 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 to which version is true when there are claims and counterclaims on factual issues. The court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum de hors the powers of judicial review.

¶60

In the present case, the reason for suspension runs

¶61

contrary to the counter affidavit filed before this Court in W.P.No.11240 of 2021 and none of the circumstances as mentioned above exist in this case. Further, as there is no dispute that the construction in question was not in compliance with the Building Rules, the action of the Petitioners, prima facie ,

¶62

11

¶63

cannot be faulted. Lastly, the orders of demolition were passed by the Commissioner and Petitioners having executed the orders cannot be penalised by way of stigmatic suspension as long as the orders of demolition are not set aside. This selective suspension for obvious reasons is quite apparent.

¶64