P SUNADANA RAO Vs. GOVT OF A P
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) 1. This is an application challenging the order of suspension dt.
25-8-69. What happened in the case was that the petitioner was
appointed as Lower Division Clerk in 1948 in the Revenue unit at
Cuddapah. He says that he was transferred to Panchayat Raj Service on 26-3-1961. He further alleges that he exercised his option in
1963 and consequently was absorbed in the Pancbayat Raj service on
1-8-63. On 31-8-64. in view of the delimitation of blocks, the
Vempalli Panchayat Samithi was abolished. He was, however not
immediately given any posting He therefore preferred an appeal to
the Secretary. In the meanwhile, however, he was given a posting
as Revenue Inspector. On 1-2-1966 he was suspended on the
allegation that when he was working as L D. C. in Vempalli Panchayat
Samitbi, there has been misappropriation. Along with him, the
Block Development Officer and several other employees were also
suspended. On a revision made by the Block Development Officer,
bis suspension order was revoked. The petitioner and others again
represented to the Government, and as a result the Government by
its order dt 17-11-1967 revoked the suspension order of the petitioner.
He was given posting in Srikakulam district but later on at
Chittoor and was posted on 2-8-68 He, however, has been again
suspended on the same charges on 25-8-1969.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that although the alleged
misappropriation took place in 1963-64 and originally the petitioner
was suspended on 1-2-1966, so far no charges are framed against
him nor any enquiry made. He has made that specific allegation in
the Writ petition and the affidavit. This specific allegation has not
been traversed by the Government in its counter The learned
Government Pleader is not in a position to categorically state that the
charges were framed and served upon the petitioner or to state as to
at what stage the enquiry is pending. It is now well settled that the
authority cannot keep the employee in suspension while the power of
suspension is to be exercised reasonably and for a specific purpose.
(3.) The authority cannot suspend the employee without framing the
charge for several years. In this case, the previous suspension was
revoked by the Government even accord ng to the counter on the
ground that the enquiry was likelv to take considerable time. That
seems to be so even now. In this case, although the second suspension
order was passed on 25-8-69, the enquiry does not seem to have
made any progress. I am, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner
cannot be kept on suspension indefinitely. I am well supported in my
view by a Decision of the Madras High Court in State v. K. Joseph In all such cases, where the employee is suspended, the
charges must be framed within reasonable time followed by enquiry.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.