WP/28949/2008 of G.Srinivas Vs The Superintending Engineer, Operation on 31 December 2008

O R D E R:-

This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare theaction of the respondent in issuing Memo dated 29.8.2008 placing thepetitioner under suspension with effect from 9.7.2008, as arbitrary andillegal, and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate thepetitioner into service.

The petitioner asserts that his wife was working in A.P.TRANSCO and during the course of her employment she died. Afterher death, on 6.12.2007, he married another woman, a widow, whosehusband died while working in the Irrigation Department atKhammam. He and his 2[nd] wife were given appointments on compassionate grounds in therespective departments. On 7.7.2008, due to some disputes betweenthem, the petitioner’s 2[nd] wife lodged a complaint against him before I Town Police Station, Khammam, alleging that he was having illegalintimacy with another woman, and he is harassing her physically andmentally. Based on that complaint, the police registered a case inCr.No.128 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPCagainst the petitioner, arrested him on 9.7.2008 and released him onbail on 11.7.2008. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1[st]respondent-Superintending Engineer, issued Memo dated 29.8.2008,suspending the petitioner from service with effect from 9.7.2008 on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a falsecase was foisted against the petitioner by his estranged 2[nd] wife, inconnection with which, he was arrested and released on bail later. The investigation of the case is still pending. However, therespondent, without applying his mind and without considering thepublic interest that is involved, has placed him under suspension,which is illegal and arbitrary. He has submitted that while suspendingan employee, what would be the public interest that is involved has tobe considered, and without considering this aspect, he was placedunder suspension. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on ajudgment of a Division Bench of this Court in P. Rajender Vs. Unionof India[[1]].

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused thematerial placed on record.

Conclusion

So far as the criminal case is concerned, investigation is not yetcompleted and charge sheet is not filed. Suspension of the petitionerpending investigation, inquiry or trial is interim in nature. The DivisionBench of this Court in P.Rajender Vs. Union of India (supra) whileconsidering the parameters of placing an employee under suspension,has held that before passing an order of suspension, the appropriateauthority shall take into consideration not only the public interest butalso the relevant facts and attendant circumstances and decidewhether it is necessary to keep the employee under suspension ornot. The authority should also consider whether reinstating thepetitioner into service while the criminal proceedings are going onwould in any manner affect his day to day functioning.

The main case of the petitioner is that after the marriage of thepetitioner with the second wife, she started creating ugly scenes for each and every petty issue and creating nuisance before theneighbours, and in spite of his best efforts to mend her manners, shedid not change her attitude, and suddenly she disappeared from thehouse and lodged a complaint. Whether the petitioner had in factindulged in the offence of harassing his wife and whether it would haveany impact on his continuing to work in the organization despite thefact that investigation is in progress are relevant factors to be taken intoconsideration by the authority. Admittedly, the respondent, withoutconsidering these aspects, has placed him under suspension on theground that he is involved in a criminal case.

The impugned order does not disclose that any of the abovefactors were considered while placing the petitioner undersuspension. The impugned order suffers totally from non-applicationof mind inasmuch as it was passed without indicating as to at whatstage the investigation or inquiry or trial of the case is, and how itspendency would affect the petitioner in discharging his duties in thedepartment. The application of mind on the part of the competentauthority is sine qua non for passing an order of suspension. Theorder only reveals that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case forharassing his wife and detained in police custody from 9.7.2008 to11.7.2008. Inasmuch as the authorities before passing the impugnedsuspension order, have not taken into consideration the relevant factsand attendants circumstances as also the public interest that would beaffected in his continuance in the department, I deem it appropriate todispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

The respondent is directed to reconsider the case of thepetitioner for revocation of the suspension order passed taking intoconsideration the parameters laid down by the Division Bench of thisCourt in P.Rajender Vs. Union of India (supra) as also in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case and pass appropriateorders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copyof this order. No costs.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

______________

N.V.RAMANA, J

31[st] December, 2008

bcj

[1](2001) 5 ALD 290