2021 (2) TMI 1350 - HC - Indian Laws

Constitutional Validity of action of placing the petitioner under suspension from service - violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India - seeking reinstatement in the same post - Whether order of suspension is liable to be set aside? - HELD THAT - The meaning of suspension is to debar from any privilege of office, emoluments etc., for a time. The real effect of an order of suspension is though an employee is continued to be member of the Government service, he is not permitted to work, further, during the period of his suspension, he is paid only some allowances generally called subsistence allowance, which is less than his salary instead of pay and allowances he will be entitled to, if he is not suspended. The petitioner is undisputedly working as Assistant Director in the office of the Regional Joint Director, School Education Department, Kadapa. The allegation against him is that he is disclosing official information and minting money and acquired property at Visakhapatnam with the ill-gotten money and that he is sending anonymous complaints against the other officials working in the department and that he is disclosing official information to outsiders thereby tarnishing the image of the department. The allegations made in the complaint submitted by the said Anil disclose that he also submitted certain voice messages along with the complaint which discloses that he is committing theft of information in files and providing those files to the outsiders - Though the petitioner made certain attributions against the other employees working in the department, there is absolutely nothing on record to establish the same prima facie and the petitioner never gave any complaint against those persons, who allegedly subjecting the petitioner to harassment while discharging his duties, for the first time, the petitioner invented the story of harassing him by the Superintendents working in the office obviously for the reasons best known to him, may be to come out from the complaint. Clause (1) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India has no application to a situation where a government servant has been merely placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry since such action does not constitute either dismissal or removal from service. In certain cases, suspension may cause stigma, even after exoneration in the departmental proceedings or acquittal by the criminal court, but it cannot, in the strict legal sense and by any stretch of imagination, be treated as a punishment - 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. Even if the present case is examined, the Court must be slow in interfering with such suspension 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. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in STATE OF ORISSA VERSUS BIMAL KUMAR MOHANTY 1994 (2) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT , this Court has to examine the facts of the present case. The first requirement is gravity of the charge of misconduct. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is disclosing information to the third parties and collected money. The same is recorded in voice messages and such voice messages are also allegedly sent to the 4th respondent but it is not placed on record either by the petitioner or by the Government Pleader for Services. Even it was not denied by the petitioner in the affidavit except contending that it is mala fide. In the absence of denial, the voice messages, if any annexed to the complaint in 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 - 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. The Courts must be slow in interfering with the order of suspension while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India more particularly when the Court is satisfied that there is some material in support of the satisfaction recorded by the 4th respondent and not tainted by mala fides. The order impugned in the writ petition placing the petitioner under suspension till completion of inquiry, he appears to be erroneous since the suspension order is required to be reviewed at the end of every six months as discussed in the earlier paras vide G.O. Ms. Nos. 86 and 526 referred above. Hence, it is obligatory on the part of the 4th respondent to review the order at the end of every six months period and take administrative decision either to continue the Government servant under suspension or revoke the same in the interest of the State - there are no ground to set aside the impugned order of suspension. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and arbitrariness of the suspension order.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice and constitutional rights.
3. Examination of the procedure followed by the authorities.
4. Allegations of mala fides and harassment.
5. Compliance with Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991.
6. Review of suspension orders as per executive instructions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Arbitrariness of the Suspension Order:
The petitioner challenged the suspension order dated 24.08.2020, arguing that it was illegal, arbitrary, and not based on any material evidence. The petitioner contended that the allegations were false and made with the intent to harass him. The court, however, found that the suspension was based on prima facie evidence, including voice messages, and was justified under Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. The court emphasized that suspension is not punitive but a measure to prevent potential interference with the inquiry.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Constitutional Rights:
The petitioner argued that the suspension violated principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that suspension does not equate to dismissal or removal from service and does not infringe on constitutional rights as long as it follows due process. The court found that the authorities had followed the necessary procedures and recorded their satisfaction based on available material.

3. Examination of the Procedure Followed by the Authorities:
The court examined whether the suspension order complied with Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. It found that the authorities had recorded their satisfaction based on prima facie evidence, including voice messages, and had followed the proper procedure. The court emphasized that it could not examine the truth of the allegations at this stage but could only review the regularity of the procedure.

4. Allegations of Mala Fides and Harassment:
The petitioner alleged that the suspension was motivated by mala fides and harassment by colleagues. The court found no evidence to support these claims, noting that the petitioner had not previously complained about harassment. The court concluded that the allegations of mala fides were baseless and that the suspension was justified based on the material available to the authorities.

5. Compliance with Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991:
The court reiterated that Rule 8 empowers the competent authority to suspend a government servant if there is prima facie evidence of misconduct. The court found that the suspension order was in compliance with the rule, as the authorities had recorded their satisfaction based on the evidence provided. The court emphasized that suspension is a preventive measure and not a punishment.

6. Review of Suspension Orders as per Executive Instructions:
The court highlighted that suspension orders must be reviewed every six months as per G.O. Ms. No. 86 and G.O. Ms. No. 526. The court directed the authorities to review the petitioner's suspension order periodically and take appropriate action based on the review. The court noted that indefinite suspension without review could cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and affect his career and promotional prospects.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to set aside the suspension order. It emphasized the importance of following due process and periodic review of suspension orders to ensure fairness and compliance with executive instructions. The court directed the authorities to adhere to the guidelines for reviewing suspension orders to prevent undue prejudice to the petitioner.