Dismissed

Moyyi Siva Prasad, v. The Chairman

Telangana HC20 Jan 2016WP/16730/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a suspension order against a hamali employee. The suspension was based on Regulation 7(1) of 1968 Regulations due to a criminal complaint under Section 498-A IPC filed by the employee's wife. The court held the order was not illegal or arbitrary as the regulation allows suspension upon registration of a criminal case.

What did the court decide?

The suspension order issued by the respondent was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed without relaxing conditions.

Moyyi Siva Prasad, Vs The Chairman — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY W.P.No. 16730 OF 2001

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring proceedings No. TE/PC/Suspension/MSP dated 06-07-2001 issued by the 2^nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and quash the same.

¶4

The petitioner was working as Hamali with the 2^nd respondent. On 06-07-2001, the 2^nd respondent issued proceedings referred supra placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that a criminal complaint was filed against him by following Regulation No. 7 (1) of the Visakhapatnam Port Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1968 (for short, '1968 Regulations'). In para No. 5 of the affidavit, the petitioner himself admitted that his wife gave a complaint against him and his family members for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'I.P.C.') but no charges were framed till the date of filing the Writ Petition. Therefore, placing the petitioner under suspension under Regulation No. 7 (1) of the 1968 Regulations is illegal and arbitrary since the alleged act is outside the employment and, therefore, prayed to quash the same.

¶5

The respondents filed counter admitting the petitioner placing under suspension as per Regulation No. 7 (1) of the 1968 Regulations since a criminal case was registered against him. Regulation No. 3 (8) of the 1968 Regulations requires every employee, who is arrested by police or convicted by a Court of law, should report about the same to departmental officials promptly upon such event taking place and any failure to do so shall render him liable for disciplinary action. Therefore, registering crime against the petitioner is a sufficient ground to place him under suspension and finally prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶6

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

¶7

since filing of criminal complaint is outside the employment in the industry and it would not come within the ambit of misconduct, the respondents are incompetent to take any disciplinary action placing the petitioner under suspension; in support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Limited Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and others^[1] ; and, therefore, prayed to set aside the order passed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶8

None appeared for the respondents.

¶9

As seen from the material available on record, including the admission in para No. 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the wife of the petitioner gave complaint to the concerned police for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. Regulation No. 7 (1) of the 1968 Regulations is almost identical to Rule 8 (1) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Even according to Regulation No. 7 (1) of the 1968 Regulations, when a criminal complaint is registered against an employee, he shall be placed under suspension and such order of suspension cannot normally be interfered with unless such suspension is mala fide and without there being even prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee with misconduct. In the present case, the petitioner admitted that his wife gave complaint against him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. Therefore, as per Regulation No. 7 (1) of the 1968 Regulations, the petitioner is deemed to be under suspension. Consequently, the suspension order passed by the 2^nd respondent is not vitiated by any mala fide or irregularity warranting interference of this Court.

¶10

One of the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that giving complaint against the petitioner by his wife for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. is outside employment; therefore, the 2^nd respondent is incompetent to initiate any action for the misconduct outside

¶11

the employment and placed reliance on M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Limited (1^st supra) in support of his contention. In the said judgment, the Apex Court, while dealing with Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, held as follows:

¶12

"Numerous acts of misconduct such as drunkenness, fighting indecent or disorderly behaviour, use of abusive language, wrongfully interfering with the work of other employees etc. are not per se misconduct. Each one of them has correlation to the time or place where it is committed. Such acts of misconduct would be misconduct punishable only if committed within the premises of the establishment or in the vicinity thereof. What constitutes establishment or its vicinity would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case."

¶13

If the principle laid down in the above judgment is applied to the present facts of the case, giving complaint against the petitioner by his wife is outside the employment but it is not even the case of the petitioner that he was placed under suspension on account of misconduct. However, Regulation No. 7 (1) of the 1968 Regulations enables the 2^nd respondent to place the petitioner under suspension since criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioner by his wife. Hence, the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance to set aside the order of suspension.

¶14

On overall consideration of entire material available on record, placing the petitioner under suspension following Regulation No. 7 (1) of the 1968 Regulations is not illegal; hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is held against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents.

¶15

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.

¶16

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

¶17

Date: 20^th January, 2016. JSK

¶18

[1] AIR 1984 SC 505

Moyyi Siva Prasad, v. The Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moyyi Siva Prasad, v. The Chairman

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

Integrated Tribal Development Agency Vs Industirial Tribunal-Cum-L.C. and Anr.

Mohammed Ameer Ali Vs Rekha Swami

Md. Jamaluddin, Vs Pic Committee U/s. 32(7) of the Ap Coop Societies

G.Narayana Rao,, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C.

Khaja Tajuddin Ahemad, Vs The Business Manager

M.S.Kumar, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C.