Suspension Order – Aid to investigation’s ultimate result. : Andhra Pradesh High Court

D V Rao vs The State Of Ap on 3 March 2021 Andhra Pradesh High Court Amravati D V Rao vs The State Of Ap on 3 March 2021 Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy THE HON BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.18709 OF 2020 This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned action of the 2nd respondent keeping the services of the petitioner under continued suspension beyond 3 months and without review even after lapse of 6 months as illegal arbitrary and contrary to law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court set aside the same as such and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pass proceedings reinstating the petitioner into services The main grievance of the petitioner is that while the petitioner is working as Port C o n s e r v a t o r h e w a s p l a c e d u n d e r s u s p e n s i o n v i d e p r o c e e d i n g s No.DCEO DoP B1 115 2020 1 dated 11.02.2020 on the ground that the petitioner involved in corruption case. He is continuing under suspension without any review as per G.O.Ms.No.86 Genl.Admn.Department dated 08.03.1994 The petitioner contended that in view of the order of the Apex Court in "Ajay Kumar Choudhary v Union of India1" he has to be reinstated revoking the suspension order. Therefore failure to review suspension order by following the principle laid down in "Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India referred supra) is arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents Sri K.Ram Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions urged in the writ petition requested to issue a direction to the respondents to review the suspension of the petitioner in view of the G.O.Ms.No.86 Genl.Admn.Department dated 08.03.1994 1 CDJ 215 SC 129No.317613 dated 16.02.2015 MSM J WP_18709_2020 Learned Government Pleader for Services I contended that the respondents are ready to undertake review in terms of G.O.Ms.No.86 Genl.Admn.Department dated 08.03.1994 Undisputedly the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the suspension order is limited as held by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in "Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna v. State of A.P.2 The principle laid down in "Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India"cannot be applied since the Apex Court did not consider the Constitutional Bench judgement in "Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal3" "O.P. Gupta v. Union of India4" and "Union of India v. R.P Indian Kanoon Kapur5". Thus in view of the judgments referred supra it is difficult to interfere with the D V Rao vs The State Of Ap on 3 March 2021 An order of suspension is a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority should also keep in mind the public interest the impact of the delinquent s continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge. The importance and necessity of proper disciplinary action being taken against government servants for inefficiency dishonesty or other suitable reasons cannot be over emphasized. While such action may be against the immediate interest of the government servant yet it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the general public for serving whose interests the government machinery exists and functions. Suspension of a government servant pending an 2 2016ALT 727 316 SCC 147 44 SCC 328 AIR 1964 SC 787 MSM J WP_18709_2020 enquiry is a necessary part of the procedure for taking disciplinary action against him.Department dated 08.03.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.526 General Administration (Ser.C Department dated 19.08.2008 With the above directions the writ petition is disposed of. No costs The miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall also stand closed JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 03.03.2021 Ksp AIR 1963 SC 687 Indian Kanoon 

Summary: An order of suspension is a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority should also keep in mind the public interest, the impact of the delinquent’s continuance in the office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge was referred by Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of D.V Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh [WRIT PETITION NO.18709 OF 2020] This order was passed over to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the 2nd respondent’s action of keeping the petitioner’s services suspended for more than 3 months and without review even after a 6-month period as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and setting aside the same. The petitioner contended that in view of the order of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, he has to be reinstated revoking the suspension order. Therefore, failure to review suspension order by following the principle laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (referred supra) is an arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents.  While stating the petitioner’s arguments in the writ petition, Sri K.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, prayed that the respondents be directed to examine the petitioner’s suspension in light of G.O.Ms.No.86 Genl.Admin. (Ser.C) Department dated 08.03.1994. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna v. State of A.P. found that this Court’s power to intervene with the suspension order is restricted.  The principle established in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India cannot be applied because the Supreme Court did not consider the Constitutional Bench decisions in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, O.P. Gupta v. Union of India, and Union of India v. R.P. Kapur. In light of the aforementioned judgements, it is difficult to overturn the suspension order. It is impossible to overstate the need of taking correct disciplinary action against government employees for inefficiency, dishonesty, or other appropriate grounds. While such action may be detrimental to the government employee’s immediate interests, it is absolutely necessary for the interests of the broader public, for whom the government machinery exists and functions. Suspension of a government employee pending an investigation is a required aspect of the procedure for taking disciplinary action against him. 2 2016 (3) ALT 727 3 (2013) 16 SCC 147 4 (1987) 4 SCC 328 AIR 1964 SC 787 MSM, J WP 18709 2020 (In the case of Khem Chand v. Union of India.)