Dismissed

A.Srinadha Swamy v. District Collector

Telangana HC28 Dec 2010WP/30217/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejects the petitioner's claim that suspension ceases automatically after six months under a 1994 Government Order. The court held that suspension remains valid until revoked and accordingly dismissed the writ petition for automatic reinstatement, though it directed the authority to review the case within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; respondents directed to review the suspension order and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

A.Srinadha Swamy Vs District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPALREDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶2

W.P. No. 30217 of 2010

¶3

O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Ramulu)

¶4

This writ petition is directed against an order made in O.A. No. 6464 of 2010 dated 22.10.2010 on the file of learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereunder the application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to declare that the applicant is no longer under suspension after 17.6.2010 and consequently to direct the respondents to permit the applicant to report to duty, was dismissed after a detailed consideration.

¶5

According to petitioner, he was working as Mandal Parishad Development Officer at Mandal Praja Parishad, Kamavarapukota village, West Godavari District. While that being so, he was placed under suspension vide proceedings of 1^st respondent dated 17.12.2009 on the ground that he was involved in Anti Corruption Bureau trap and a case has been registered in Cr.No.14/RCT-EWG/2009 under Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that his continuance in office will prejudice the investigation. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner approached the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by filing O.A. No. 6764 of 2010.

¶6

It was the case of the petitioner that the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.86 GAD dated 8.3.1994 directing the disciplinary authority/competent authority to review the order of suspension for every six months. If the competent authority does not pass any orders extending the period of suspension beyond six months, the employee shall be deemed to be no longer under suspension. Therefore, he sought a direction to the respondents to

¶7

permit the applicant to report to duty as Mandal Parishad Development Officer at Kamavarapukota, West Godavari District.

¶8

Respondents filed their counter and stated that G.O.Ms.No. 86 does not contemplate automatic re-induction into service at the end of six months’ period of suspension. It is left to the disciplinary authority to review the order of suspension depending upon the nature of charges, delay in finalization of enquiry and other attendant circumstances. The said G.O. does not give right to applicant to seek automatic reinstatement in the absence of review of order of suspension after completion of six months’ period.

¶9

After hearing both the parties and considering the guidelines laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 86 dated 8.3.1994, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A., holding that Sub-Clause (iii) of para 3 of the said G.O. provides a limit of two years from the date of suspension, failing which the public servant may have to be reinstated without prejudice to the proceedings being pursued and, at any rate, the G.O. does not contemplate automatic reinstatement after expiry of six months i.e. by 17.6.2010; therefore, the question of permitting the applicant to report to duty does not arise. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed.

¶10

Heard both sides.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶12

Sri C. Ramachandra Raju strenuously contended that under G.O.Ms.No. 86 dated 8.3.1994 instructions have been issued for review of suspension of Gazetted and Non-Gazetted officers, indicating the authorities empowered to undertake such reviews of orders of suspension for continuance beyond the period of six months and, therefore, at the end of every six months the suspension against a Government servant shall have to be reviewed. In this case, no such review was taken up beyond 17.6.2010; therefore, petitioner is automatically entitled for being reinstated into service. The appropriate

¶13

reviewing authority should take a decision regarding continuance or otherwise of the employee concerned under suspension, with reference to the nature of charges where delays in finalization of enquiry proceedings cannot be attributed to the employee or when there is no interference from the employee in facilitating the enquiry. The competent authority cannot wait for the outer limit of two years from the date of suspension. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to report to duty with effect from 18.6.2010.

¶14

Whereas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned Tribunal and relied upon a decision reported in Government of A.P. v. V. Sivaraman^[1] to say that the order of suspension after a period of six months would not become non est, giving automatic right for reinstatement into service. There is no provision of law conferring such right on a Government servant who has been placed under suspension pending enquiry in a case against him. Where the rules provide for suspending a civil servant and require thereof to report the matter to the Government giving out reasons for not completing the investigation or enquiry within six months, it would be for the Government to review the case but it does not mean that the suspension beyond six months becomes automatically invalid or non est. The only duty enjoined by such a rule is that the officer who made the order of suspension must make a report to the Government and it would be for the Government to review the facts and circumstances of the case to make a proper order. It is open to the Government to make an order revoking the order of suspension or further continuing the suspension. The order of suspension however, continues until it is revoked in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

¶15

“( 5 ) THIS is not a retrospective suspension order but an order further continuing the

¶16

suspension. The conclusion of the Tribunal to the contrary proceeds on the wrong assumption that the first order of suspension has come to an end by the expiry of six months. Such an assumption is apparently unsustainable. There was no prescribed period of suspension in the first order. As we have already indicated it does not come to an end after six months. It continues till it is revoked, though it is necessary to review the case once in six months in the light of the instruction 18 contained in Appendix VI of the APCS (CCA) Rules and the circular of the Chief Secretary dated 13/02/1989.

¶17

( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed, and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.

¶18

( 7 ) BEFORE parting with the case, we may, however, observe that if the case of respondent has not been reviewed as stated in the order dated 6 December, 1988 it will be open to him to approach the government for review of his case and if there is any such request, the Government will dispose it of expeditiously. It is needless to state that the respondent shall be paid subsistence allowance, arrears and current. Appeal allowed”.

¶19

Admittedly, the charge is that the petitioner was involved in a case of trap by Anti Corruption Bureau and a case is registered. Generally speaking, it is not desirable to permit such a person to report to duty during pendency of enquiry proceedings. May be, in a given case the authorities are entitled to review the order of suspension of a Government employee, considering the graveness of the charge. But, as noticed above, merely because order of suspension is not reviewed at the end of six months, the Government servant will not get any right for reporting to duty or it would be treated that the suspension order is revoked automatically. We are of the

¶20

considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is a well considered one and we see no infirmity, either on facts or on law, requiring interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶22

However, it is always desirable for the competent authority to review each and every case looking into the nature of the charges levelled against them. In this case also the respondents are directed to take up the review and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶23

______________________ JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY.

¶24

______________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU DATE: 28-12-2010

¶25

MVB.

¶26

[1] AIR 1990 SC 1157

A.Srinadha Swamy v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Srinadha Swamy v. District Collector

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

Panday Balaji Prasad Vs The Secretary to Government, Law (L.a.Andj) Department

Pidugu Sasi Kanth Reddy Vs The District Judge, Kadapa

Smt. Sangeeta Vs The Registrar ( Administration )

Smt. Vattipalli Narasamma, Vs The District Election Authority-cum- Collector

Chebrolu Jaganmohan Rao S/o Seetharamaiah (died) Vs The State of a.P., rep by Commissioner

K. Hemalatha Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration