TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 1350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed against the petitioner at any time. Thus, petitioner discharged his duties with due diligence and honestly. 3. While working at Kadapa as Assistant Director in the office of Regional Joint Director of Education Department, one Konda Sudhakar Reddy, C. Suresh Babu, who are superintendents working in the office of DEO, Kadapa and Sri M. Venkata Krishna Reddy, RJDSE Kadapa, have conspired together and started harassing the petitioner in one way or the other for different personal reasons. All of them have conspired together and sent a Telugu letter to the 2nd respondent from one press reporter by name Anil Proddatur. He made a complaint against the petitioner by addressing a letter to the Commissioner, School Education Department, alleging that he is misusing his official power and revealing official secrets of the Department, to the third parties and thereby he is minting money. It is also alleged that with the money, he purchased house at Visakhapatnam and thereby tarnishing the image of the Department. It is also alleged that he is lodging fake complaints against the department officials by name Palle Ramesh and others and that he is taking photographs of the letters received i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not based on any material and the alleged voice messages sent along with complaint, are not placed before the Court and the order is silent with regard to such material. Therefore, in the absence of any iota of truth in the allegations, the impugned suspension order in the Writ Petition is liable to be set aside. 8. Mere recording of satisfaction of the authorities without any basis is not sufficient in compliance of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and when such transfer is mala fide, the order cannot be sustained and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on judgment by the Division Bench of this Court reported in A.B. Venkateswara rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2020 LawSuit(AP) 166 represented by Chief Secretary through Government and draw the attention of this Court to the para Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment in support of his contention. 9. Finally, it is contended that on account of such impugned order, the image of the petitioner is tarnished in the public at large besides stigma on the career of the petitioner and if he is allowed to be under suspension till completion of the departmental proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, and law declared by the Apex Court time and again to find out whether the order passed by the 4th respondent placing the petitioner under suspension, which is impugned in the writ petition, is in compliance of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, or it is tainted by any mala fides with an ulterior motive to tarnish the image of the petitioner and whether such order is supported by material to record satisfaction of the concerned authorities. 12. The petitioner is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. Rule 8 is the relevant rule that deals with suspension of a Government servant. Suspension:-(1) A member of a Service may be placed under suspension from service- (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where in the opinion of the authority competent to place the Government servant under suspension, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State, or (c) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. (d) A member of a service may be placed u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant injuriously. The very expression subsistence allowance has an undeniable penal significance. The expression 'life' does not merely connote animal existence or a continued drudgery through life. It has much wider meaning. Although suspension is not one of the punishments specified in rules vide O.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 2257. Thus, it is undeniable that the effect of suspension is serious on the career and in the office also in the public life. Therefore, before passing an order, the authorities have to apply their mind and if the authority found that his continuation in the office during pendency of the inquiry, allowing him to work may adversely affect the pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry. The Government servant can be placed under suspension subject to filing some material to record prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner is indulged in such activities amounting to misconduct as defined under Rule 3 of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules or other rules of the same. 15. Keeping in view of the effect of suspension, it is appropriate to examine the legality of the impugned order in the writ petition. The petitioner is undisputedly working ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner under suspension. According to Rule 8(1)(b) of the rules, wherein in the opinion of the authority competent to place the Government servant under suspension, if he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State, the Government servant can be placed under suspension. Here, the allegations made in the complaint, if true and the voice messages support such allegations, it is certainly prejudicial to the interest of the State, since disclosing official information to the third parties even before acting on those information by the departmental authorities would seriously affect the interest of the State and it will have its impact on the Department itself, as such the person who is acting or indulging in such activities prejudicial to the interest of the State has to be dealt with in accordance with law and if such person is allowed to continue to work in the Department, he would continue to indulge in such activities. Those activities may have some impact on the inquiry contemplated against the petitioner as per Rule 20 of the Rules. Therefore, placing a Government servant based on such serious allegations, if true, is justifiable. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....46). As an employer can suspend an employee pending an inquiry into his conduct, the only question that can arise on such suspension will relate to the payment during the period of such suspension. If there is a provision in the Rules providing for the scale of payment during suspension, the payment would be in accordance therewith. On general principles, therefore, the authority entitled to appoint a public servant would be entitled to suspend him pending a departmental inquiry into his conduct or pending a criminal proceeding, which may eventually result in a departmental inquiry against him. (R.P. Kapur AIR 1964 SC 787; V.P. Girdroniya (1970) 1 SCC 362; T. Cajee (1961) 1 SCR 750 : AIR 1961 SC 276; and Balvantray Ratilal Patel AIR 1968 SC 800; Tarak Nath Ghosh (1971) 1 SCC 734; Bhimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126). 20. An order of suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority should also keep in mind the public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge. (Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147; Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not desirable for the court to find out as to which version is true when there are claims and counterclaims on factual issues. (Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2013) 16 SCC 147). No conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record. It is always advisable to allow disciplinary proceedings to continue unhindered, and the concerned employee kept out of the mischiefs range. If he is exonerated, he would then be entitled to all the benefits from the date of the order of suspension. (U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan; Bhimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC 126). The usual ground for suspension, pending a criminal proceeding, is that the charge is connected with his position as a government servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude. In such a case a public servant may be suspended pending investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge. (R.P. Kapur AIR 1964 SC 787). 23. The power of suspension should, however, not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as a vindictive misuse of power. A suspension order cannot be actuated by mala fides, arbitrariness, or be pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... orders. When the competent authority recorded its satisfaction based on the material placed before him along with the complaint that itself suffice to place a Government servant under suspension. Though the effect of suspension is serious on the career of the employee but debarring him from discharging his duties temporarily is only to avoid his interference or continuously indulging in such activities prejudicial to the interest of the state. Normally, an appointing authority or disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission. The order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration of the gravity of the misconduct sought to be enquired into or investigated and the nature of evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of mind by the disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be an administrative routine or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....support of the allegation therein, are true, it is a grave misconduct since such acts are prejudicial to the interest of the State. Therefore, keeping in view of the gravity of the misconduct sought to be enquired into, the petitioner is placed under suspension by the 4th respondent. 27. The second requirement to place the Government servant under suspension is there must be some evidence before placing a Government servant under suspension. Here in this case, the 4th respondent concluded that there is prima facie evidence in support of the allegations perhaps the voice messages or other material, though not referred specifically in the order. The said voice messages are sufficient to form the basis to prima facie to conclude that petitioner is indulged in the activities prejudicial to the interest of the State. 28. A bare look at the impugned order, it is clear that the disciplinary authority-4th respondent herein has applied his mind to the facts of the case and passed an order, not as an administrative routine. 29. As discussed above in the earlier paras, the Courts must be slow in interfering with the order of suspension while exercising power under Article 226 of the Consti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed mala fides to the other employees in the cadre of Superintendents who are allegedly harassing the petitioner for different reasons. The order was passed by the 4th respondent in his official capacity and when no mala fides are attributed against the 4th respondent, the Court need not examine the malus animus on the part of the 4th respondent or malice in law or malice in fact. On the other hand, the petitioner had neither pleaded nor established either malice in fact or malice in law. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the suspension order is tainted by mala fides. 33. The petitioner approached this Court to set aside the impugned order of suspension on various grounds discussed above, but this Court finds no substance in the contention. However, the order of suspension is liable to be reviewed for every six months, in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 86 General Administration (Ser. C) Department, dated 08.03.1994, directed that the order of suspension against a government servant should be reviewed at the end of every six months; the appropriate reviewing a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Court is binding on the High Court, it would be inappropriate to say anything more about the judgment. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case referred above drew a distinction between cases where a charge sheet is filed within 90 days of the order of suspension and cases where it is not. The latter has been held to result in putting to an end the order of suspension, while the former has been held to require a reasoned order, extending the period of suspension, to be passed by the Government. However, in Tarak Nath Ghosh (1971) 1 SCC 734, the Supreme Court held that, in principle, there is no difference between the position of an officer against whom definite charges have been framed to which he is required to put in his written statement and a situation where, on receipt of allegations of grave misconduct against him, the Government is of opinion that it would not be proper to allow the officer concerned to function in the ordinary way. Again, in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal's case, the Supreme Court held that the delinquent cannot be considered to be any better of after the charge-sheet has been filed against him in the Court on conclusion of the investigation than h....