IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27231 of 2008 Between: 1 The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad. 2 The State of A.P., Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 A.Lavaiah, S/o. Late Krishna Murthy, (under suspension), Railway Police, Nidadavolu, West Godavari District. 2 S.Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late Subba Reddy, Government Railway Police, Nidadavolu, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 10-10-2007 in O.A.No.3631/2006 including all further proceedings relating thereto on the file of the A.P.ADministrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and erroneous and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27231 of 2008 O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, in O.A. No. 3631 of 2006 dated 10.10.2007, the Police Department preferred the present writ petition. While the respondents were working as Sub-Inspector of Police and Head Constable in Railway Police Station, Nidadavolu, they were placed under suspension, vide proceedings dated 12.05.2005, on the allegation that they had accepted illegal gratification, which was telecasted by a Television News Channel. Subsequently, the matter was reviewed by the Director General of Police in proceedings dated 21.12.2005 and their suspension was extended for six months from 14.11.2005. The respondents assailed the said proceedings before the Tribunal alleging that the allegations levelled against them were false and since the departmental enquiry was not completed within a period of six months and as there was no further extension of the period of suspension after the proceedings dated 21.12.2005, they were entitled to be reinstated into service. Pending disposal of the O.A., the respondents filed M.A.No.1806 of 2007 seeking to reinstate them into service and placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.86, dated 08.03.1994. The Tribunal, by order dated 10.10.2007, impugned in the writ petition, allowed the O.A. and M.A. in part with a direction to the departmental authorities to complete the enquiry initiated against the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the respondents would be reinstated by lifting the suspension orders. The Tribunal, however, observed that if the department could not complete the enquiry within the stipulated time, it granted liberty to the Department to seek extension of time for completing the enquiry and to extend the period of suspension. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the Department would contend that pursuant to the order of status quo in W.P.No.15213 of 2006, dated 18.09.2007, the departmental enquiry initiated against the respondents could not be completed within the stipulated time. He would contend that having regard to the gravity of the allegations levelled against the respondents of accepting illegal gratification, which was exposed by the Television Channel, the department may be granted further period of two months time to complete the enquiry initiated against the respondents. It would be appropriate to extract G.O.Ms.No.86, GAD dated 08.03.994. “G.O.Ms.No.86 Dated:08.03.1994 G.O.Ms.No.480, G.A.(Ser.C) Department dated 07.09.1993 In the G.O. read above, instructions have been issued for review of the suspensions of Gazetted Officers, Non-Gazetted Officers indicating the authorities empower to undertake such reviews to orders of suspension for continuance beyond the period of six months. 2. During the meeting of the Secretaries to Government held on 07.07.1992, the issue of inordinate delays in finalizing inquiries both departmental and ACB resulting in hardship to the employees was discussed an Officer’s committee was constituted to examine, among others, the issue of suspension of public servants and to submit proposals for review of the existing instructions. The Committee has accordingly made certain recommendations, which have been accepted by the standing sub-committee. 3. Considering the above recommendations, in view, the following further orders are issued in view of suspension orders against the Government servants. i) The orders of suspension against a Government Servant shall be reviewed at the end of every six months. ii) The appropriate reviewing authority should take a decision regarding continuance or otherwise of the employee concerned under suspension, with reference to the nature of the 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. iii) An outer limit be provided as two years from the date of suspension failing which the public servant may have to be reinstated without prejudice to the proceedings being pursued. However, in exceptional cases considering the gravity of the charges one could be continued under suspension even beyond a period of two years especially in cases where there is deliberate delay caused due to non- cooperation of the employee concerned. iv) The concerned Principal Secretary/Secretary of the Department should review the suspension cases of their department at an interval of six months with the representative from the ACB, if the proceedings arose out of the investigation conducted by Anti-Corruption Bureau and make suitable recommendations as to the desirability or otherwise for the further continuance of the officers under suspension v) The above benefit may be given to all existing cases as and when their half yearly review is taken up. vi) All Departments of Secretariat/Heads of Departments are requested to follow the above orders scrupulously and bring it to the notice of all concerned.” Despite the aforesaid G.O. providing an outer limit of two years to complete the enquiry from the date of suspension, the department, in the instant case, though suspended the delinquent employees as early as on 12.05.2005, failed even to complete the enquiry within that period. Though the Tribunal granted liberty to the department to approach it seeking extension of time to complete the enquiry and to extend the period of suspension, the department failed to do so. Except to state that because of the order of status quo, the departmental enquiry could not be completed, no further steps were taken by the department to complete the enquiry. Though this Court vacated the order of status quo on 13.10.2008, the department failed to complete the enquiry within two months even from that date also. In the instant case, though the suspension proceedings were initiated against the respondents as early as on 12.05.2005, the departmental enquiry initiated against them is still pending and the respondents have been reinstated into service pursuant to initiation of C.A.No.904 of 2007 before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J Dt:17-12-2008 usd