Suspension pending disciplinary inquiry upheld where prima facie material supported the order and no mala fides were shown

A suspension order pending disciplinary proceedings will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction if the competent authority acts under the governing service rules, the order is supported by prima facie material, and mala fides or arbitrariness are not established. Under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, suspension is permissible where inquiry is contemplated or the conduct appears prejudicial to the State's interests. The court does not test the truth of the allegations at the threshold. On the facts, the authority relied on material including alleged disclosure of official information and voice messages, recorded prima facie satisfaction, and the suspension was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order placing the petitioner under suspension was liable to be set aside for want of material, lack of application of mind, mala fides, or violation of the governing suspension rule.

Analysis: The writ court's role in a challenge to suspension is limited to examining whether the order is supported by relevant material and whether the competent authority has acted within the governing service rules. Under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, suspension is permissible where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or where the circumstances disclose conduct prejudicial to the interest of the State. A suspension order is not punitive, and the Court will not assess the truth of the allegations at the threshold. The impugned order referred to material placed before the authority, including allegations of disclosure of official information and related voice messages, and recorded prima facie satisfaction. The allegation of mala fides was not established against the suspending authority, and the material was sufficient to justify interim suspension pending inquiry. The Court also noted that suspension must be periodically reviewed in terms of the relevant government instructions.

Conclusion: The suspension order was upheld and the challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A suspension pending disciplinary proceedings will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction if it is supported by prima facie material, is made by the competent authority under the service rules, and is not shown to be mala fide or arbitrary.

---