WP/23233/2004 of Ch.Papa Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its on 28 December 2004

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation & CAD (Ser.VI(1) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Engineer-in-Chief,

Administration Wing,

Irrigation & CAD Department,

Erra Manzil, Hyderabad.

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ ofmandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing the impugned orderbearing G.O.Rt.No.821, I and CAD (Ser.VI(1) Dept., dt.16.7.2004 and rejection of theinterim relief by an order dated 27.10.2004 in O.A.No.4300 of 2004 of Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal as arbitrary, illegal and set aside the same and pass suchother order or orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SATYAM REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court at the admission stage made the following :

ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Bikshapathy)

The Writ Petition is filed assailing the order passed by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.4300/2004 dated 27-10-2004.

2. The petitioner who was working as Deputy SuperintendingEngineer was suspended by the Government by G.O.Rt.No.821,Irrigation & CAD (Ser.VI(1) Department dated 16-7-2004. The saidorder came to be challenged before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal.The A.P. Administrative Tribunal refused to interfere with the orderassailed and admitted the O.A., but however the Tribunal observedthat no interim relief can be granted. Challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a criminal casein respect of alleged possession of disproportionate assets to theknown sources of income of the petitioner has been registeredagainst him in Cr.No.27/2002 on 5-11-2002 suo motu by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District andinvestigation was also completed and the petitioner was givenstatutory notice dated 19-6-2004. The learned Counsel also submitsthat in view of the guidelines issued by the Government in MemoNo.596/Spl.B/2000-6, dated 10-6-2002, the petitioner cannot beplaced under suspension inasmuch as there was norecommendation by the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureauwhich is necessary in cases of Government servants acquiringdisproportionate assets to their known sources of income. He alsoplaced reliance on a decision of this Court in W.P.No.2514/2004dated 16-2-2004 wherein similar issue was discussed and order ofsuspension was set-aside.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II however submitsthat since the petitioner was involved in A.C.B. case, necessarily hehas to be placed under suspension and the impugned order of theGovernment cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

6. It is not in dispute that Anti-Corruption Bureau has conductedinvestigation right from the year 2002 and statutory notice was alsoissued on 29-6-2004. Further, we find that in respect of the casesregistered for possessing disproportionate assets to the knownsources of income, the Government have clarified the issue in Memo No. 596/Spl.B/2000-6, dated 10-6-2002 wherein it is clearly statedthat it is open for the authorities to place the employee undersuspension on the recommendation of the Director General of Anti-Corruption Bureau. We directed the learned Government Pleader forServices-II to get instructions as to whether there is anyrecommendation by the Director General of the Anti-CorruptionBureau in this regard. Though the learned Government Pleader couldnot get instructions, he still submits that inasmuch as the case ispending, suspension can be resorted to.

7. We are unable to accept with the contention of the learnedGovernment Pleader for Services-II. The said issue was alsoconsidered by this Court in W.P.No.2514 of 2004 by order dated 16-2-2004 referred to above. It is incumbent upon the authorities toconsider whether suspension is warranted keeping in view the factsand circumstances of each case. Inasmuch as the Director Generalof Anti-Corruption Bureau has not recommended suspension of thepetitioner and the enquiry was also completed, we do not find any prima facie case to continue the petitioner under suspension. Underthese circumstances, we set aside the order of the Tribunal andsuspend the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.821,Irrigation & CAD (Ser.VI(1) Department dated 16-7-2004 pendingdisposal of the O.A. Accordingly we allow the Writ Petition. However,we leave it open to the authorities to post the petitioner to any othernon-focal point if they so choose. No costs.

___________________

Justice G.Bikshapathy

___________________

Justice P.S.NarayanaDate : 28-12-2004

L.R. copy to be marked : YES / NO

Note: Furnish copy in (2) days.

AM

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.

Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on thisTwenty eighth day of December Two Thousand and Four.

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

To

1. Principal Secretary to Government,Irrigation & CAD (Ser.VI(1) Department,Government of Andhra Pradesh,A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.2. The Engineer-in-Chief,Administration Wing,Irrigation & CAD Department,Erra Manzil, Hyderabad.3.2CCs to Government Pleader for Services-II,High court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT)

4.2CD copies