Smt. K.Janaki Vs The State of Telangna

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA^KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 2892 OF²⁰²⁴

¶7

Between:

¶8

' Smt. K.Janaki, W/o. K. Srinivas Reddy, Age. 41 years, Sanitary lnspector (Under suspension), Municipal Corporation Peerzad i^g ud a, Hyd e ra bad. Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangna, rept.by its Special^{Chief/ Principal Secretary,} Municipal Administration and Urban Development^{Department, Secretariat,} Hyderabad

¶12

The Commissioner and Director of^{IVlunicipalAdministration, TelanganaState,} Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an order or direction, more^particularly one^{in the natureof writ of} Mandamus, to declare the action of^{the 2ndrespondentin placingth'e petitioner} under suspension vide lmpugned Proc.Roc.No.^{558229120231C2'dl. 2.8.2023} w.e.t 12.7.2023 and continuing him^{under suspension beyond the period of 6} months as illegal, arbitrary, unfair,^{unjustand contraryto the G.O'Ms.No.86' dt'} 8.3.1994, apart from law laid down^{by Honble Apex Courtand this Honble court} and consequently direct the^{respond-ents to reinstatethe petitioner in-tb service} with all consequential benefits

¶15

,,

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{writn petition,the High courtmay be pleasedTo} direct the respondents to reinstate^{the petitioner into service by suspending the} operation of tire impugned suspension^{order issued vide lmpugnedProc.Roc.No.} 598229120231C2, dt. 2.8.2023 w.e.l^{1 2.7 .2O23}

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶19

Between:

¶20

The State of T,:iangna, rept.by its Special Chief/ Principal Secletary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat , Hyderabad

¶21

The Commissi()ner and Director of Municipal Administration, T'rlangana State, Masab Tank, l-lyderabad.

¶22

...PETITIONERS/R ESPONDENTS

¶23

AND

¶24

Smt. K.Janaki, Wo. K. Srinivas Reddy, Sanitary lnspector (Under suspension), [4unicipal Corporation Peerzadiguda,Hydere bad. Medchal Malkajgiri Distr c;t.

¶25

...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONERS

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumst;'rnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orrt:r dated 26.02.2024 passed in lA No. 1 of 2A24 in W.P. No. 2892 of 2024

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. C SAI REDDY

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶29

The Court made the^following: ORDER

¶30

t I

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.2892 of 2o24

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶35

is frled seeking the following reliet

¶36

"...to issue an order or direction, mare partiqiarlg one in tlle nature of Writ of Mqndomu, to declare the^qction of thp 2"4 respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension vide Impugted Proc.Roc.No. 598229/2023/C2, dt: 2.8.2023 w.e.f 12.7.2023 and continuing him under suspension begond the period of 6 months^as illega\ arbitrary, unfair, unjust and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No. 86, dt: 8.3.1994, apart from law laid doun bg Hon'ble Apex Court and^this Hon'ble Court and- consequentlg dired the respond.ents to reinstqte the petitioner into seruice uith oll consequential benefrts and to^pass..."

¶37

Heard Sri C. Sai Reddy, Iearned counsel for the^petitioner and Iearned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of^the respondents.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that^{while the} petitioner was working as Sanitary Inspector at Peerzadiguda^Municipal Corporation, Mecha,l Malkajgiri^{District, the ACB authorities of Ranga} Reddy Range conducted a raid on^{I2.O7.2O23and registeredcase} against the petitioner and an OIIice Subordinate,^{vide CrimeNo.S/RCT-} ACB-RRR/2023 for the offences punishable^{underSections 7(a)(b) and} 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,^{1988,alleging that the petitioner}

¶39

/

¶40

2

¶41

PK, J W.P.h ).2892 of 2O2a

¶42

had demalded Rs.20,000/- from the complain mt, one

¶43

Mr. N. Sriramul,-r, Municipal Contractor (Private), for previously processed bills pe rtaining to the supply of sanitar5r items anr I Chappels etc., as well as the outstanding bills pertaining to main _enance of vehicles, and ac^(repted the same through Smt. R. Sar'tja, Office Subordinate. F urther, on the very same day of registering the aforementioned case, the petitioner and the Ofhce Subord nate were arested ald sent for judicial custody- Thereafter, both of Lhem were 'of enlarged on bail virle order d,ated,24.08.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.S z8 2023 on the frle of the I Additional Special Judge for Tria-l of SPI ald ACB Cases, Hyderabac. However, since the petitioner had been in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, respondent No.2 placed her under suspension vide proceedings dated 02.O8.2023, by inv,rking the provision of Rule [t(2)(a) of the Telangana Civil Services (Cla;sification, Controi ald AppezJ) Rules, 1991.

¶44

It is furthe- submitted that the petitioner never der randed or collected ttre allegr:rl amounts from tl:e said Contractor, ald that neither the ACB authorities nor the Phenolphthalein Test yielded aly results. In fact, the aforeraentioned allegations are factually incorr ect, false, baseless, contrary :o the evidence available on record, and invented for the purpose of th,: case. Further, in the decision of the Ho:r,ble Apex

¶45

t

¶46

3

¶47

PK, J W.P.NI-2692 of 2024

¶48

Court in AJqg I(urnal. Choud.hary u. unior. of Indiat, it was held that the currency of suspension order should not be extended beyond three months, if within this period, the Memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent employee. In the present case, even though six months have elapsed as on 11.O1.2O24, the ACB authorities have not yet frled a charge sheet in the said case, and despite the petitioner's repeated representations for her reinstatement, the respondents are illegally continuing herunder suspension. , As such, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service. Therefore, Iearned counsel lor the petitioner prays this Court to set aside the impugned suspension order dated O2.OA.2O23 and to direct tJle respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service.

¶49

At the time of admission, Iearned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no charge memo was furnished to the petitioner subsequent to passing the impugned order. The same was also admitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. On consideration of the said facts, this Court vide order dated 26.02.2024 granted interim suspension of operation of the impugned suspension order dated O2.O8.2O23 ttll 28.03.2024, and the same was extended periodically.

¶50

t(2otsl 7 scc 291

¶51

r(-

¶52

4

¶53

PK, J W.P.N t.2892 of 2024

¶54

Learned Government Pleader for Services filed v rcate stay application along with a counter afhdavit, seeking a vaca ion of the above interim orc.er, and submitted that in response to the Radio Message receiverl from the ACB officials, the Govern,nent vide Memo.No. 10389 / llig.l /2023 dated 2O.O7.2023, directed to place the petitioner under strspension w.e.f., 72.O7.2023, in accordancr: with RuIe 8(2)(a) of the CClr Rules. Accordingly, respondent No.2 .ssued the impugned suspen:iion order dated O2.O8.2O23 placing the petitioner under suspension w.e.f., 72.07.2023 duly taking into a( count the gravity of offence and public interest. Therefore, there is no llegality or irregularity commil,ted in issuing the order of suspension. Fu rther, with regard to the^ju<lgment of the Honble Apex Court relied on by the petitioner in Ajag Kumar Choudhary (supra), it is subnitted that subsequent to the said^judgment, this Court, by considering the same, took a different vir:rv in the matter of suspenSion in the case o1 Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna u. Sto,te of Andhra Prad.esh and others2. However, the petilioner has not made out any case to interfe: e with the orders of suspensjon.

¶55

7 . It is furthe r submitted that pursualt to the aforesa id interim order, tlre Government, vide Memo.No.10389lVig.I/2023 dated

¶56

22ot, 16) ALD 694 (Dl1'

¶57

5

¶58

PK, J W.P.No.2892 of 2024

¶59

26.O3.2024, has notifred respondent No.2 that a review meeting on ACB cases was conducted on 28.02.2024 as per G.O.Ms.No.86 dated 08.03-1994, and it was recommended to continue ttre petitioner under suspension since the ACB case is under investigation. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition by vacating the interim order dated 26.02.2024.

¶60

This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective pa-rties and perused the records.

¶61

Admittedly, as on the date of interim order i.e., 26.02.2024, neither the petitioner's suspension order was reviewed nor any charge sheet/article of charge was served on the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it AJag Kum.a.r Choudhary [supra), wherein, it was held that a suspension order cannot extend beyond three months if no charge memo or chargesheet is served on the delinquent employee within that period, this Court gralted interim suspension of the operation of the impugned suspension order dated O2.O8.2O23 till 28.03.2024, and the sarne was extended periodically. The relevant portion of the aforementioned judgment is extracted hereunder:

¶62

We, therefore, direct that the curreacy of a suspensjq4 !!dq ctsqul4 Eo! a249-sC-!9I9sC t!!ge^rEorths if withiE this Deriod the^memoraiduD of

¶63

6

¶64

PK, J W.o.No.2892 of 2024

¶65

t r utqeq_{ s9c__9rc9! of r case in hand. the Sovernment is free fo ')d to any departmerr,: in any of its offices s to sever any local or personal contact he may misuse fo - obstructing ttte in '/errunent may also trohibit him from contac tlng any 3^records and think docurnents this will adequatelytill the stagesafeguardof his the havingu niversally recognised ence. principleWe of human the interer;td ignity of the and the Government inright to a the speedy prosecution. trial and sha_ll We alsc dse preservethat ttre previ<rrrs Constitution Benches have been relu r quash proceeding;s on the grounds of delay, and to set to their duration- llowever, the imposition of a limit on the :pension has not been discu ssed in prior case law, and would not be co -rtrary to tle intere sis of j ustice. Furthermore the direction of the Central Vigilalce 3ommission that pending a criminal inver . tigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands su 'rerseded tn view of t he stand adopted by us.

¶66

(Emphasis r.upplied)

¶67

The primary and the sore contention of the responderrts is that a Division Bench cf this Court, having duiy considered the afot.ementioned decision of the tson,ble Apex Court in Ajag Kumar Choudhary (supra), has adopted a ditJ'erent stance in the case of Budd.ana Venh,.crtq. Murati Krishna (supra), ald emphasized that suspension serves a[. an interim measure to mainr_ain the integrity of investigations and th lt such arr order of susper: s;ion is justihed when the allegations zrgainst the delinquent are s:rious in nature, involving moral turpitud e. In this context, it is perrinent to refer to relevant portion of the sajd decision, which is extracte<l hereunder:

¶68

"Suspension in the present case, is not a substantive punishmer rt, and is an interin order pending enquiry/criminal p.oce.di.rgs. (S""; M;";

¶69

7

¶70

PK, J w.P.No.2692 of 2024

¶71

Sugar Works^(P) Ltd. v. Shobrati Khan).^{Suspensionof this kind is not} a punishment but only forbids^{ordisablesthepetitioner from} discharging the duties of his^{ofhceor the post held by him.In other} words it is to restrain him from availing^{furtheropportunities of} perpetrating the alleged misconduct or^{to remove the impressionamong} members of the service that^{deretiction of duty would pay and the} offending employee^{carr get away pending inquirywithout any} impediment, or to^prevent an opportunity^{to the delinquent ollicer to} scuttle the inquiry or^{investi8ation or to wilr over tl1ewitnesses,or} allord,ing the delinquent^the opportunity^{in o{Iiceto impedethe progress} of the investigation or inquiry^{etc. (State of Orissav. Bhimal Kumar} Mohanty). "

¶72

"An order of suspension must^{be a stepin aid to the ultimate result of} the investigation or inquiry.^{The authorityshouldalso keep in mindthe} public interest of the impact of the^{delinquents continuancein offrce} while facing departmental inquiry^{or trial of a criminalcharge. (Ashok} Kumar Aggarwal; Bimal^{Kumar Mohan$;R.P. Kapur;arrd} BalvaltraiRatital Patel). The^{importance and necessityofproper} disciplinary action being taken^{against governmentservantsfor} inefficiency, dishonesty or other^{suitablereasons'cannot be over} emphasised. While such action^{may be against the immediate interest} of the government servant,^yet it^{is absolutelynecessar5rin the interests} of the general public for^{serving whoseintereststhegoverrunent} mactrinery exists and functions.^{Suspensionof a government servant} pending in enquiry is a^{necess€rypart of the procedurefor taking} disciplinary action against^{him.(Khem Chaldv. Union oflndia)."}

¶73

"Ordinarily, a^{governmentservant isplaced undersuspensionto} restrain him from availing^{the further opportunity to perPetrate the} alleged misconduct or to^{scuttle tlte inquiry or investigationor to win} ovei the witnesses or to^{impedethe progressof the investigation or} inquiry, etc. It would also^{removetheimpression, among members of} thJ service, that dereliction^{of duty would pay. (Ashok KumarAggarwal} Bima1 Kumar Mohanty).^{When seriousdlegationsof Eisconductare} imputed alainst a member of^{a service,normally itwould not be} deiirable 6 altow him to^{continuein the} Post^{wherehe is functiouing'} The government may rightly^{take the view that an offlcer, againstwhom} serio-us inputations are^{made, shouldnot be allowedtofunction} an5rwhere before the matter^{has been finallyset at rest after proper} scrutiny and holding of^{dePartmentalproceedings.(TarakNathGhosh)'} The purpose of suipension^{is generallyto facilitate a dePartmental} enquiry and to^{ensurethat, while such enquiry is going on-it mayrelate} to ierious lapses^{on the part of a public servant-, he is not in a Position} to misuse hii authority^{in the sameway in which he mighthave been} charged to^{have done so in the enquiry.(R.P.Kapur)."}

¶74

"The Supreme Court,^{in AjayKumar Choudhary, drewa distinction} betweeniases^{where a charge sheet is frled within 90 daysof t}le order} of suspension^{andcaseswhere it is not.Thelatter hasbeen held to} result^{^in} putting to an^{end the order of suspension,while theformer}

¶75

1

¶76

PK, J w P.No.2892 of 2024

¶77

has been held to require a reasoned order, extending the period of suspension, to be passed by the Government. However, in ''arakNath Ghosh, tlx) Supreme Court held that, in principle, there is no difference between .lre position of an olficer against whom dchnite ch. rges have been franx:d to which he is required to put in his written stat( ment and a situation where, on receipt of allegations of grave miscondu ct against him, the 3overnment is of opinion that it would not be prop(,r to allow the ofhce| concerned to function in the ordinarlr way."

¶78

"The attelrlion of the Supreme Court in Ajag Kumar ChoudharN, was r,ot drawn to i:s eallier judgments in Ashok Kumar Agganuat; SaliuRajan; L. Srinivasan; and. Deepak Kumar Bhola, wherein it was held that mere delay in conclusion of disciplinaqr proceedings or cnminal cas:s or long period of r;uspension would not render the order of suspensior invalid.

¶79

This Coul may not, therefore, be justified rn quashing tht order of suspensic r. following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aj ty Kumar Choudharl, as that would require it to ignore the Constitut on bench judgmentr; of the Supreme Court in Khem Chand, R.p. Kapur and.V.p. Cirdroniy'r as also the other judgments of the Supreme Courl in Ashok Kumar A ggarwal; SanjivRajan; L. Srinivasan; ard Deepa< Kumar Bhola."

¶80

From the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the yiew that the two^judgments referred supra address distinct factua,l be ckdrops zrnd legal scenarios The judgment h AJag Kumat Choud.hary $tpral emphasizes the limitation on the duration of suspensio 1 in routine cases and manCates that suspension should not exceed three months without serving a charge memo/charge sheet. However, in Budd.o;na Venkata. Murali Krishna (supra), this Court clariht d that the aforementioned rule does not apply universally. It is also held therein that in c,ases involving serious and grave allegation s, such as cornrption, co ttinuation of rsuspension is necessar] until the

¶81

9

¶82

PK, J W.P.No.2892 oJ 2024

¶83

investigation is concluded or the criminal proceedings are resolved, so as to safeguard the public interest.

¶84

Admittedly, the petitioner herein was placed under suspension on the allegation that he had collected a bribe of Rs.20,00O/- amounting a gross violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Moreover, he was under judicia-l custody for more than (48) hours. Therefore, the action of respondent No.2 in placing the petitioner under suspension cannot be found fault with, more particularly, in view of Rule 8(2)(a) of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which reads as under:

¶85

"Suspension

¶86

(8) (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the authority competent to place him under suspension.

¶87

(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a crimina-l charge or otherwise for a period not exceedrng forty eight hours."

¶88

Furthermore, it is evident from the record that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondents reviewed the suspension order and decided to continue the petitioner under suspension in view of the pendency of the ACB case, which is evident from the proceedings in Memo.No.10389 /Yig.I/ 2023 d.ated 26.03.2024.

¶89

10

¶90

PK, J w.I .No.2892 of 2024

¶91

This Cou:r,, while passing the interim order dated^26.02.2024, relied on the^,lecision of the Honble Apex Court in Ajag Kumar Choudhary (supra). However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the^gravity of allegations^againstthe petitioner, involving moral turpitude ald his continuation in the^ofhce would have an adverse impact on the ongoing investrgatior^r in^{the ACB} case, this Cot:r't is not inclined to interfere with^th e^impugned suspension ord er, more^{particularly,} in light of the^de( ision of^the Division Bench cf this Court in Buddanq^{VenkcLtaMurolli Krishna} (supra). Howe uer, since six months have already elaps ed from the earlier review of t he petitioner's suspension order daled^{26.113.2O24,this} Court deems i1 appropriate to direct the respondents^{tr) review the} petitioner's susl),insion order strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.N(.86, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 08.03.1994, in^{the light of} decision of the lon'ble Apex Court in Aiag^{KumdrChoud)\a.ry (supra),} ald pass appro:riate orders thereon, strictly in^{accordancewithlaw,as} expeditiously as; possible, preferably within a^{period of fot r (04) weeks} from the date oi receipt of a copy of this order, and commu^{licate a copy} thereof to the pr:titioner.

¶92

11

¶93

PK, J W.P.No.2892 of 2024

¶94

\

¶95

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition stalds

¶96

disposed of and the interim order dated 26.O2.2024 is vacated.

¶97

.^{Miscellaneousapplications,if any, pendingin this writ petition,}

¶98

shall stand closed. No costs.

¶99

LNffiI IJAYA SD,- L.v NT REGI^STRAR ASSIS

¶100

,TTRUE^COPY'I CNON^OFFICER d istration^andUrban To, L:::iii I l:?:,s;ffi "?5':g'?'"f'"' T: #:: ":nistration,,^Telangana 2 o r the^{State of Telangana} J, 11,",":1'l$:f one^{cc to sRr ffil} " lhT:}^tl'l?;;r, ;,- , ,r,nn^court ",,^fo 4 Two^{CCs to GP FORSEF} touTl 5 Two^{CD CoPies} KKS GJP