IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13280 of 2007 Between: 1 The Secretary to Government in Finance (Admn.II) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, G.A.D. (Ser.C) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The A.P.General Life Insurance , Rep. by its Director of Insurance, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND N. Syamala Rao, Joint Director of APGLI, R/o. Flat No. 102, Santosh Apartments, SBI Colony, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 the orders of the Hon'ble A.P.Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA NO. 1889/2006 dt. 17-4-2007 as being erroneous, illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.NO. 13280 OF 2007 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is ﬁled by the Government challenging the order dated 17.4.2007 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribuanl, Hyderabad in OA No. 1889 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal directed the writ petitioners to re-induct the respondent into service. According to the respondent, he was directly recruited to the category of Assistant Director of Insurance through A.P. Public Service Commission and was working as Joint Director of A.P. General Life Insurance. According to him, he was instrumental in exposing the illegal appointments made by the then Director and was directly responsible for giving complaints to the police, vigilance and to the Government of A.P. The Director got included the name of the respondent in the list of suspects and suspension orders were issued on 23.5.2001 wherein the D.O. letter written by the Director of Insurance, dated 19.5.2001 was referred to. It is the case of the respondent that the Government acted on the letter of the Director of Insurance, dated 19.5.2001 and issued the suspension orders quite mechanically. Except the DO letter and complaint of the Director of Insurance given to ACB, there is no other material available against the respondent. Even the Director of Insurance was suspended subsequently by the Government. The respondent was expecting a joint enquiry to be conducted into the complaint before the ACB authorities. Subsequently the competent authority booked criminal cases and continued the investigations till 2006 and the writ petitioners have not made any progress in the said enquiry, therefore the respondent made a request to reinstate him into service. On 15.11.2005 the competent authority ﬁled a charge sheet in the trial court against the respondent and others as the investigation was completed. Subsequently the suspension of the respondent was revoked and reinstated into service on 18.2.2006 vide G.O.Rt.No. 471, Finance (Admn.II) department wherein it is stated that reinstatement is without prejudice to the ongoing judicial process against him. According to the respondent, once again the writ petitioners issued orders in GO Ms.No. 874, Finance (Admn.II) Department, dated 13.3.2006 placing the respondent under suspension as a charge sheet was ﬁled on 15.11.2005 by the authorities in the cases relating to fraudulent appointments. It is stated that the suspension was with reference to point 5 of Chapter XXIV of A.P. Vigilance Manual Vol. I. The said orders were challenged by the respondent on the ground that for the same charges or the incident, which was under investigation departmentally and in the criminal case, the respondent was kept under suspension for more than 1½ years. The Tribunal considered the case and observed that the respondent was re-inducted into service after the matter was referred to the Director General, A.C.B. and the Commissioner of Police, Abids Police, Hyderabad and after taking into consideration all the circumstances particularly as the respondent was under suspension for the last four years, posted to a far away non-focal post and also such reinstatement of the respondent into service was without prejudice to the departmental proceedings and the criminal action pending against him. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the OA and directed the Government to re- induct the respondent into service by the impugned order. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the writ petitioners contended that there are two diﬀerent charges and with regard to the ﬁrst charge, the respondent was already suspended and subsequently revoked, but with regard to the second charge, the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the OA. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that after the second charge only, the authorities revoked the suspension and directed reinstatement of the respondent into service without prejudice to the departmental proceedings and criminal action pending against him and subject to posting him to a far away and non-focal point post. Under Rules 8, 14 and 15 of the A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules and also under Point 5 of the A.P. Vigilance Manual Vol. I, the Government has the power to place an employee under suspension whenever a criminal oﬀence is under investigation, inquiry or trial against the government employee and in view of such power being given, the Tribunal found that the respondent has already been suspended while the criminal case was under investigation vide GO Rt. No. 981, dated 23.5.2001 and after lapse of four years and on a representation made by the respondent, the Government, after discussing the matter with various authorities, under GO Ms. No. 86, dt. 8.3.1994, revoked the suspension of the respondent vide GO Rt. No. 471, dated 18.2.2006 and reinstated him into service without prejudice to the departmental proceedings and criminal action pending against him and subject to posting him to a far away and non- focal point post. In view of such circumstances of the case, when once the power conferred under the aforesaid rules was already exercised by the writ petitioners by keeping the respondent under suspension, the same power cannot be exercised once again by keeping him under suspension for a second time. The Tribunal has considered the rule position and has rightly allowed the OA. The writ petitioners have not placed any provision of law or authority to indicate that the second suspension was permissible. We do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the order of the Tribunal and there is no error of jurisdiction so as to dislodge the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED _____________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Dt.26.8.2008 KR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}