IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos : 20324 of 2006 & 695 of 2007 Between: K.P. Goutham, S/o P.V. Kannaiah Naidu A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., Srikalahasti, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., rep by Managing Director, regd. Office at 5-10-193 2nd Floor, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad 2 District Manager (Seeds), APSDDC Ltd., Srikalahasti Chittoor District .....RESPONDENTS 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, direction order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in keeping the petitioner under prolonged suspension without any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, malafide contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 86 G.A.D.Dt 08-03-1994 and violation of principles of natural justice and consequentially set a side the impugned suspension order in No. SSDV/Admn./2003-04/3069 dated 02-08- 2003 in the interest of justice and pass such other order or this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.SHYAM SUNDER RAO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 695 of 2007 Between: 1 P. Ravi Prakash S/o Jayanandam H. No. 45-24-K-1-B, Ashok Nagar Kurnool. Kurnool District. 2 K. Krishnaiah s/o Mallaiah R/o Lakshminagar, Kallur Estate Kurnool, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P. State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., rep by Managing Director, Regd. Office at 5-10-193, 2nd Floor, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 District Manager (seeds), APSDDC Ltd., Ananthapur Ananthapur district. .....RESPONDENTS 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, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in keeping the petitioner under prolonged suspension without any enquiry is illegal, arbitrary, malafide, contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 86, G.A. D. dt 08-03-1994 and violation of Principles of Natural justice and consequentially set a side the impugned suspension order in No. SSDC/Admn/2003-04/3066 dt 02-08-2003 and SSDC/Admn/2003-04/3072 dt 02-08-2003 respectively in the interest of justice and pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.CH.SHYAM SUNDER RAO The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT : By an order passed on 2nd August 2003, the 1st respondent – Corporation, a public sector undertaking, has placed the petitioners under suspension, as it was revealed to the Corporation that all the three employees are involved in an illegal transportation of 120 bags of 40 kgs. each of groundnut seed, through a truck from Bathalapalli sale counter of the Corporation in Anantapur District, after repacking the seeds from APSSDC seed bags into old gunny bags and that they were apprehended by the local police at Bathalapalli Sales Counter, Anantapur District. The allegations that have been thrown against the three petitioners are fairly serious in nature. They have serious ramifications on the activities of the Corporation as a public service oriented organization. These allegations also touch upon the core integrity of the employees of the Corporation. Since the employees have already been proceeded against, in the criminal Court, the Corporation appears not to have taken any further steps against the petitioners by way of concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Obviously, the Corporation is not in a position to make up its mind as to whether it should proceed against the employees independently and de hors the pendency of the criminal proceedings at all. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners against the impugned orders is that the Corporation has got the power to place any of its employees under suspension, but the Corporation does not enjoy immunity from placing the employees under suspension for prolonged period. The learned counsel submits that the Corporation, as a model employer, cannot place its employees under suspension and forget about their existence thereafter. Placing an employee under suspension, either pending an enquiry or pending trial in a criminal case, is not per se a punishment, but is only a step in aid of the ultimate proceedings, but at the same time, it will be difficult to visualize a situation where an employee can seek automatic reinstatement after expiry of certain length of time after his being placed under suspension. No employee has got a right to force an unwilling employer to take him back to duty and entertain him to duty as well. Every employee has got a right to certain privileges attendant to the status as an employee of a public sector undertaking, but at the same time, the employer has also got the power as well as the obligation to ensure that the fair name of the organization is not attempted to be sullied in any manner. Every employer has got a right to keep an employee away from the work place. Useful reference, in this regard, can be had to Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Workers Union[1], but however, prolonged period of suspension is known to produce adverse result upon the morale of not only the work force but also upon their dependants. Therefore, the option that was available to an employer was to pay not merely the subsistence allowance either at 50% or at 75% beyond a particular period of time of suspension, but to offer 100% of salary and allowances drawn by the employee at the time he was placed under suspension. That is an option available to every employer. That would save the Corporation from being accuse of causing heart burn and also causing damage to the quality of life of the employee and his dependants. At the same time, it will also force the Corporation or the employer to concentrate quickly in finalizing the disciplinary proceedings, in case there is enough material to bring forth the charge laid against the employee concerned. Payment of 100% of salary and allowances without extracting any work would also make the employer feel the necessary urgency to finalize the proceedings as such payment would be perceived as an unproductive exercise. Therefore, leaving an option to the 1st respondent corporation to make an assessment as to whether the writ petitioners should be re-instated and allowed to function, even at a far off place from where the incident had occasioned so that they will not be able to influence the witnesses who are likely to speak against them and also prevent them access to tamper with the material that is available on record or to continue them under suspension and pay them 100% wages, as if they are working. That is a right available to the employer to keep a particular employee away from the work spot. An appropriate decision in this regard is liable to be taken at any rate within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. ----------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J) 12th November 2008 ksld [1] 1959 (2) LLJ 544 (SC)