THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.5501 OF 2010 06-12-2010 Between: The Commissioner/Director, Women Development & Child Welfare, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and another. ……….Petitioner And Smt. J.M.J.Komali and another. ………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.5501 2010 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.12551 of 2009, dated 04-02-2010, whereby and whereunder, the Tribunal by setting aside the proceedings dated 05-01-2009 issued by the 1st petitioner herein keeping the 1st respondent under suspension, directed the petitioners to reinstate the 1st respondent into service. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent was initially appointed as a gratuity teacher and, while, on promotion, she was working as Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency, Vizianagaram, the 1st petitioner issued suspension orders in proceedings No.01/PC/08, dated 02-01-2009 without issuing any charge memo on the ground that the 1st respondent offered bribe to her by putting some money in the cover along with a greeting card, personally, on her table. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent preferred appeal before the 2nd petitioner, but the same is kept pending. At this stage, the 1st respondent approached the Tribunal and filed the present O.A. challenging the impunged proceedings issued by the 1st petitioner. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. and directed the petitioners to reinstate the 1st respondent into service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal, in its order, observed that though one year is elapsed, till now, no disciplinary enquiry is initiated by issuing charge memo. F.I.R. was registered against the 1st respondent only by A.C.B. authorities on 27-11-2009 on the basis of a report given by the 1st petitioner. The said report was given after long lapse of time i.e. 11 months after the incident. There is no explanation as to why no charge memo was issued and no departmental enquiry is initiated. In view of these facts and circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Services II vehemently contended that the Tribunal while allowing the O.A. committed jurisdictional error. When once an employee was placed under suspension, he cannot be reinstated into service without completing enquiry. Hence, the only course upon the Tribunal is to direct the authorities concerned to complete the enquiry within a reasonable time frame, but instead, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing reinstatement of the 1st respondent into service. He further contended that the Government also issued sanction of prosecution vide G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 22-11-2010, prosecuting the 1st respondent in a Court of law under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘P.C. Act’) punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the P.C. Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Sri J.Sudheer, contended that Section 8 (1) (a) of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules (for brevity ‘Rules’) defines ‘suspension’ that a member of a service may be placed under suspension from service, where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. But, here, though the suspension order was passed on 05-01-2009 i.e. one year is elapsed, till now, no enquiry was initiated. The Director, who is the complainant, ought not to have placed the 1st respondent under suspension since she herself is a witness in this case, and moreover, the Tribunal has not committed any error since an employee cannot be placed under suspension indefinitely on the administrative decision and that since the Director herself is a bias, the higher authority only should place the 1st respondent under suspension. However, since the Tribunal has realized that as no charge sheet was filed, only sanctioning of prosecution itself is not a ground for her suspension and that the Tribunal has pointed out the long delay in initiating enquiry and therefore, the 1st respondent cannot be kept under suspension indefinitely. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order of suspension of the 1st respondent is justified? 8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent failed to draw our attention with regard to the authority of the 1st petitioner in placing the 1st respondent under suspension though he contended that the 1st petitioner is incompetent and has no authority to pass the impugned order. Further, since the 1st petitioner herself gave a report against the 1st respondent and even before suspending the 1st respondent, the Government also sanctioned prosecution prosecuting the 1st respondent for the offences as alleged, it cannot be said that the proceedings issued by the 1st petitioner are not sustainable under law. 9. In the circumstances, especially, in view of the illegal bribe offered by the 1st respondent to the 1st petitioner and having regard to the order issued by the Government sanctioning prosecution against the 1st respondent, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has exceeded its limit of jurisdiction in directing the petitioners to reinstate the 1st respondent into service. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 04-02-2010 in O.A.No.12551 of 2009 on the file of the AP Administrataive Tribunal, Hyderabad, is quashed. However, as it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Services II that in normal cases, the enquiry has to be completed within three months, and in complicated cases, the enquiry has to be completed in six months and if the employee is kept under suspension indefinitely, that will affect his right, we direct the authorities concerned to complete the enquiry expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated:06-12-2010 ________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR kvr