Shaik Saleem Basha Vs The State of A.P.

THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY ITS PRL., SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI-522237.

¶13

SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT GRAMA-WARD VOLUNTEERS/VILLAGE WARD SECRETARIES TADEPALLI,GUNTUR DISTRICT- 52250.

¶14

COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA-520001.

¶15

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA-520001.

¶16

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, PUBLIC HEALTH SECTION, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIJAYAWADA520001.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the

¶19

2

¶20

High Court may be pleased topleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularity one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate direction to set aside the impugned suspension order Vide Roc. No.WS-S2-114934/2022, dated 20-082022, issued by the Respondent No.3, without following due process of law and without giving 'reasonable opportunity' of being heard in respect of suspension and entering the suspension in service register without conducting enquiry and without awarding any punishment, simply by stating that the petitioner failed in collection of user charges and not even reached target of collection in his jurisdiction is illegal arbitrary and un-constitutional and it amounts to violation of articles 14, 16, 21 and 311(2) of the constitution of India and CCA Rules, and also contrary to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union Of India Vide CIVIL APPEAL No.1912 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP No. 31761 of 2013). Hence the Impugned suspension order be may set aside and treat the extraordinary leave of the suspension period as on duty i.e. from 20.08.2022 to 10.11.2022(83days), with all consequential benefits such as seniority, promotion, etc., and remove the suspension mark from the service register, by directing the Respondent No.3 and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

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 direct to set aside the Show Cause Notice issued by the Respondent No.3, Vide Rc.No.F2108468/2022 (4) Dated 18-05-2023 and remove suspension mark in Service Register, and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.HARSHA VARDHANA RAO C

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR SERVICES IV

¶27

2.S.V.S.S.SIVARAM SC For VMC

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶31

W.P.No.21404 of 2023

¶32

ORDER :

¶33

This writ petition is filed questioning the impugned suspension dated 20.08.2022 passed by Respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶34

The Petitioner was working as Ward Sanitary and Environment Secretary, Ward Secretariat-57, 13^th Division, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. While so, vide proceedings Roc.No.WS-S2-114934/2022, dated 20.08.2023, the Petitioner was suspended from service as he failed in collection of user charges.

¶35

Subsequently, vide proceedings in Roc.No.WS-S2114934/2022/E.No.16444, dated 11.11.2022, the Petitioner was reinstated into service calling upon to be vigilant and attentive in discharging his legitimate duties in future.

¶36

Vide proceedings Roc.No.WS-S2-

¶37

114934/2022/E.No.16444/2022 dated 03.12.2022, the service of the Petitioner was regularized and the period was treated as 8Extra Ordinary Leave9 from 20.08.2022 to 10.11.2022 (83) days. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶38

4

¶39

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that treating the period of suspension as 8Extra Ordinary Leave9 in the absence of any disciplinary enquiry cannot be sustained and the Petitioner is entitled for regular salary for the said period. It is also submitted that Commissioner, Municipal Corporation is not competent to pass the order of suspension as the Regional Director, Municipal Corporation alone is competent to pass any orders regarding suspension as per the A.P.Municipal General Subordinate Service Rules, 2019 issued vide G.O.Ms.No.286 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (UBS) Department dated 07.11.2019.

¶40

Learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits that the suspension order dated 20.08.2022 having been revoked, no cause survives in the present writ petition. However, learned standing counsel submits that the competency of the Municipal Commissioner would be examined in the light of the Rules quoted by the Petitioner and appropriate steps will be taken in that regard.

¶41

Considering the submissions, this Court is of the opinion that in the absence of any disciplinary action, the period of suspension is bound to be regularized by the Respondent-authorities and denial of salary for the period of suspension amounts to punishment.

¶42

5

¶43

The writ petition is therefore, disposed of directing the Respondents to regularize the period of suspension from 20.08.2022 to 10.11.2022 (83) days as 8in service9 and pay salary to the Petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶45

___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶46

Date: 10.12.2025 KLP

Shaik Saleem Basha v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Saleem Basha v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K. v. Nageswara Rao, Vs Union of India

D Venkatesh Naik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Syed Sirajullah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kvln Prasad Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

V Ramaswamy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Murali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh