An order of suspension is a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority should also keep in mind the public interest, the impact of the delinquent’s continuance in the office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge was referred by Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of D.V Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh [WRIT PETITION NO.18709 OF 2020]
This order was passed over to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the 2nd respondent’s action of keeping the petitioner’s services suspended for more than 3 months and without review even after a 6-month period as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and setting aside the same.
The petitioner contended that in view of the order of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, he has to be reinstated revoking the suspension order. Therefore, failure to review suspension order by following the principle laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India (referred supra) is an arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents.
While stating the petitioner’s arguments in the writ petition, Sri K.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, prayed that the respondents be directed to examine the petitioner’s suspension in light of G.O.Ms.No.86 Genl.Admin. (Ser.C) Department dated 08.03.1994.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna v. State of A.P. found that this Court’s power to intervene with the suspension order is restricted.
The principle established in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India cannot be applied because the Supreme Court did not consider the Constitutional Bench decisions in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, O.P. Gupta v. Union of India, and Union of India v. R.P. Kapur. In light of the aforementioned judgements, it is difficult to overturn the suspension order.
It is impossible to overstate the need of taking correct disciplinary action against government employees for inefficiency, dishonesty, or other appropriate grounds. While such action may be detrimental to the government employee’s immediate interests, it is absolutely necessary for the interests of the broader public, for whom the government machinery exists and functions. Suspension of a government employee pending an investigation is a required aspect of the procedure for taking disciplinary action against him. 2 2016 (3) ALT 727 3 (2013) 16 SCC 147 4 (1987) 4 SCC 328 AIR 1964 SC 787 MSM, J WP 18709 2020 (In the case of Khem Chand v. Union of India.)
In light of the foregoing arguments, Court sees no reason to overturn the order challenged in the writ petition. However, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.86 General Administration (Ser. C) Department, dated 08.03.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.526 General Administration (Ser. C) Department, dated 19.08.2008, it is reasonable to direct the respondents to review the suspension order six months after the date of suspension.
