Dismissed

Chalapaka Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, v. The District Collector/Executive Director

Telangana HC3 Apr 2013WP/26184/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the suspension and subsequent extension of an Assistant Engineer in a disproportionate assets case. Upholding the State Government's order, the Court held that preventing corruption is a larger public interest justifying prolonged suspension pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without costs; miscellaneous applications dismissed.

Chalapaka Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, Vs The… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26184 OF 2012

¶2

O R D E R:

¶3

This Writ Petition is instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order on 13.05.2011 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, prayed to set aside the same.

¶4

The writ petitioner while working as an Assistant Engineer with the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited at Ganapavaram, West Godavari District was placed under suspension by proceedings, dated 13.05.2011 passed by the District Collector/Executive Director, Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited. It was recorded in the said proceedings that the writ petitioner has been arrested on 12.05.2011 at about 14.00 hours by the Anti Corruption Bureau officials and he was produced before the Hon’ble Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada. A criminal case was also booked against him by the Anti Corruption Bureau. The case of the petitioner is that certain disgruntled elements have complained against him that he was in possession of disproportionate assets and the State Government has taken a policy decision through their memo No. 554/Ser.C/93-6, Genl. Admn. (Ser.C) Department, dated 26.12.1994, issuing certain instructions with regard to suspension of government employees involved in cases of traps and possession of disproportionate assets taken up for investigation by the Anti Corruption Bureau. Dealing with the disproportionate assets cases, it is stated as under:

¶5

“ Disproportionate Assets Cases:

¶6

(i) In cases of disproportionate assets, the Accused Officer need not be suspended immediately following the registration of the case. But he may be transferred to a far off non-focal post to avoid the likelihood of his tampering with the records and influencing the witnesses.

¶7

(ii) If, however, the Anti Corruption Bureau finds,

¶8

during investigation that there is reasonable ground for believing that the Accused Officer has deliberately failed to cooperate with the Investigating Agency or that he is trying to tamper with the official records or influencing the witnesses or bringing pressure on the Investigating Officers, it is open to the disciplinary authority to place the Accused Officer under suspension at that stage, based on the recommendations of the Anti Corruption Bureau to that effect.

¶9

(iii) In cases other than those mentioned above, the disciplinary authority should consider and decide to the desirability of placing the Accused Officer under suspension, if he is not already under suspension, as and when a charge sheet is filed against him in a Court of Law or where, after investigation, it is decided to initiate regular departmental action for imposing any of the major penalties and a charge memo is served in this regard.”

¶10

Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no necessity for the respondents to keep the writ petitioner under suspension at all and the same shall be reviewed forthwith, keeping in view the instructions passed on by the State Government in the aforementioned memo dated 26.12.1994, by reinstating him back to duty and if necessary, by transferring and posting him to a far off place.

¶11

The learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Sri D.V. Sudheer Kumar, who took notice, has produced before me a copy of the order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the State Government in Housing (Vig. Cell) Department, extending the period of suspension of four officials by a further period of six months and one of those four incidentally was the writ petitioner herein.

¶12

The whole question, which requires consideration in this case, is as to whether the writ petitioner is really required to be placed under suspension pending further investigation into the crime registered

¶13

against him relating to his possessing assets, which are found to be disproportionate to his known sources of income or not. Suspension pending enquiry or investigation into a crime is not considered as a penalty, but however, prolonged suspension of a public servant is likely to create frustration amongst those who are suspended. Investigations and prosecutions, particularly relating to disproportionate nature of assets, consume fairly long time. Therefore, the State Government has considered it appropriate to issue certain instructions and guidelines and accordingly, the memo dated 26.12.1994. By the very nature, the orders passed by the State Government in their memo dated 26.12.1994 are guidelines, which are intended to help the competent/disciplinary authorities to regulate their exercise of discretion involved in the matters. It is not as if that the said instructions have any statutory backing or force to secure their enforcement.

¶14

The State Government, as a policy, has to ensure that the public administration is kept free of the corrupt elements. Corruption not only dilutes the efficacy of the policy implementation of the State but also produces the opposite of the result expected from the public administration. Therefore, every effort has got to be made for preventing corruption creeping into public administration. Possession of disproportionate assets is only indicative or inferential of the acts/attempts of corruption indulged in by public servants. The investigation, by the very nature of the job involved, is a tedious one and also consumes lot of time and energy. Various leads are required to be followed up carefully. Material has got to be gathered before a final opinion can be worked out, as to one is really guilty of possessing assets, which are disproportionate to the known sources of the public servant or not. Now that the State Government has passed orders extending the period of suspension of four of its employees by a further period of six months, including that of the writ petitioner, it follows that

¶15

the State Government has applied its mind properly and then, came to the conclusion that the period of suspension of the writ petitioner deserves to be extended. The decision arrived at by the State Government in this regard therefore, pre-supposes that the State Government has applied its mind as to the requirement of continuance of the writ petitioner under suspension by a further six months’ period. Once the State Government has already considered it as desirable and needed to extend the period of suspension of the writ petitioner, I can infer that the State Government has taken such a decision to subserve the larger interests of the public interest.

¶16

I therefore, do not find any justifiable reason for entertaining the present Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed, but however, without costs.

¶17

Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand dismissed.

¶18

_______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J

¶19

03^rd April 2013

¶20

ksld

¶21

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1040 of 2010

¶23

January 31, 2013

¶24

SP/KKM

Chalapaka Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, v. The District Collector/Executive Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chalapaka Srinivasa Rao S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, v. The District Collector/Executive Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Parameswara S/o a.Chendrayudu Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M.Prasad, S/o Nallagondaiah Vs A.P.S.R.T.C Rep by its Vc and MD

Md. Chand Pasha, Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director

C. Shekar Vs The A.P. Genco

Mr. Surya Prakash Vs The Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd.

Md.Rizwan Ali Khan Vs The A.P. Genco