HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5518 OF 2011 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary to Government and three others ………….Petitioners AND U. V. Prasada Rao S/o Brahmanandam 52 years and one another ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Heard both sides and at their request the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to issue an order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 10.12.2010 passed in O.A No. 8323 of 2010 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as extended until further orders vide order dated 24.12.2010 and quash the same as illegal. The Tribunal while admitting the matter passed the following order: “Since the learned G.P. is immediately not able to refer to the rule position regarding the competency of the 4th respondent, there shall be interim suspension of the Proceedings C.No. 28& 29/PR/2005/ROO No. 504/2010 dated 18.9.2010, for a period of two weeks. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks.” The Tribunal extended the above interim order until further orders on 24.12.2010. The learned Government Pleader submits that the in sub-rule 15, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Commissioners of Police or Officer of Corresponding Rank concerned” are competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against “Inspectors of Police, Reserve Inspectors Armed Reserve, Inspector of Andhra Pradesh Special Police, Inspectors of Shorthand Bureau, Inspectors of Police Communications, Inspectors of Police, Police Transport Organisation, Inspectors of Women Police”. Thus the Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range, Guntur is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the respondent-Sri U. V. Prsada Rao, Reserve Inspector formerly of DAR, Nellore and the disciplinary proceedings are rightly initiated against the applicant. In view of the above submission, as the Inspector General of Police, Guntur Range is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the Tribunal ought not to have passed the interim suspension and ought not to have extended the same till further orders and it amounts to allowing of O.A at the stage of admission. For that the learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER VS. N. RAMANAIAH[1], wherein the Supreme Court observed that the power had been conferred concurrently on Engineer-in-Chief as well as on higher authorities, and therefore, there was no jurisdictional error when power was exercised by Government in the name of Governor. Though by this process, respondent employee lost opportunity of submitting appeal to the Government/Governor, yet he had alternative remedy of filing review, which he did not avail. In paragraph 34 of the judgment held as under: “It is not as if there is no remedy available against the order passed by the Government dismissing a government servant from its service. Rule 38 of the said Rules confers on every member of State Service, or a member of subordinate service in whose case the Government has passed original orders, shall not be entitled to appeal but shall be entitled to make separately and in his own name, within a period of three months from the date on which the order was communicated to him, a petition to the Government for review of the order passed by the Government on any of the following grounds, namely: “(i) that the order against which the petition of review is made was not passed by the competent authority; (ii) that a reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner for defending himself ; (iii) that the punishment is excessive or unjust; (iv) that the petitioner has made a discovery of new matter or evidence which he proves to the satisfaction of the Government, was not within his knowledge or could not be adduced by him before the order imposing the penalty was passed; and (v) that there is an evident error or omission in the order such as failure to apply the law of limitation or an error of procedure apparent on the fact of record”. The power conferred upon the Government to review its own order is very wide and that a substantive right of review has been conferred on every member of a State service or a member of subordinate service against orders passed by the Government. In the present case the respondent failed to avail the remedy provided for under Rule 38.” In view of the above, The Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by granting interim suspension of the proceedings dated 18.9.2010. Hence, the interim suspension granted by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the O.A on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J DATE: 09.03.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] (2009) 7 SCC 165