A.Sashidhar Reddy, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 July, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

A.Sashidhar Reddy, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 July, 2020

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT!

IN TH

TAL ORIGINAL JURISKICTION)

om
£

(SPEX

PRES

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

YOSST, (ORGS, 1O286, (D981 and 10528 OF 26:

TORS, 1224

WRIT PETITION NO:

ak
SG

BAL

spondanis
SPH

=
Sy

ayy

ANB

Refyesn

Red

SAS ANSAS READER®

VOF 20

(A NO:

HOUT

~
LS

IPE

WP NO. 0227 OF

ANR

s
*

Between

agen

3. The Executive Officer, Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam,
Srisailam, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

. .Respondents

iA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend
G.O.Rt.No.518 Rev (Vigilance IV) dated 11.06.2020 of the 1* respondent, pending
disposal of WP 10221 of 2020, on the file of the High Court.

WP NO. 10247 OF 2020:

Between:

Kovuri Venkateswara Rao, Late K Venkatasubbaiah, aged about 45 years, working as
superintendent, Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam, Srisailam,
Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Revenue (Endowments) Department, A-P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District.

2. The Commissioner of Endowments Department(AP), Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Office at Gollapudi, Krishna District, A.P

3. The Executive Officer, Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam,
Srisailam, Kurnooi District, Andhra Pradesh.

.. Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to
issue an order or direction, one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the
G.O.Rt.No. 518 (Vigilance IV) dated 11.06.2020 issued by the 1* respondent in so far
as directing the 3° respondent to suspend the petitioner and to file criminal cases
against the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently
declare the proceedings in Re.No, A1/1326-A/2020 dated 11.06.2020 of the 3°
respondent sus[pending the petitioner from service, as illegal and arbitrary and declare
that suspension from service and fileling criminal cases against the petitioner is totally
unwarranted in view of the charges framed in charge memo dated 09.06.2020 and
direct 3 respondent to give effect to the orders of the 2" respondent vide Proceedings
Re.No.01/353628/2020 dated 11.06.2020 transfering the petitioner from 3 respondent
devasthanam.

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend
G.O.Rt.no.618 Rev (Vigilance IV) dated 11.06.2020 of the 1* respondent and the
consequential order of the 3 respondent vide proceedings Re.No.A1/1326-A/2020
dated 11.06.2020, pending disposal of WP 10247 of 2020, on the file of the High Court.

WP. No. 10268 of 2020:
Between: Fe
S. Srinivasa Raju, S/o S. Krishnamurthy, aged about 52 years, Senior Assistant,
Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam, Srisailam Kurnool District
Andhra Pradesh
.. Petitioner
AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Revenue (Endowments) Department, A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District.

2. The Commissioner of Endowments Department{AP), Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Office at Gollapudi, Krishna District, A.P

3. The Executive Officer, Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam,
Srisailam, Kurnoot District, Andhra Pradesh.

. Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to
issue an order or direction, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the
G.O.Rt.No.518 Rev (Vigilance IV) dated 11.06.2020 issued by the 1* respondent in so
far as directing the 3° respondent to suspend the petitioner and to file criminal cases
against him, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently declare the
proceedings in Rce.No.A1/1326-A/2020 dated 11.06.2020 of the 3rd respondent
suspending the petitioner from service, as illegal and arbitrary and declare that
suspension from service and filing of criminal cases against the petitioner is totally
unwarranted in view of the charges framed in charge memo dated 09.06.2020 and
direct the 3 respondent to give effect to the orders of the 2™' respondent vide
proceedings Re.No. C1/3536287/2020 dated 11-06-2020 transferring the petitioner from
3" respondent Devesthanam.

IA NO: 71 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend
G.O.Rt.No.518 Rev (Vigilance IV) dated 11.06.2020 of the 1st respondent and the
consequential order of the 3rd respondent vide proceedings Rce.No.A1/1326-A/2020
dated 11.06.2020, pending disposal of WP 10268 of 2020, on the file of the High Court.

W.P, No, 10269 of 2020: °

Between:

M. Srinivasa Rao, S/o Chinna Subba Rao, aged about 51 years, working as Senior
Assistant, Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam, Srisailam Kurnool
District Andhra Pradesh

.. Petitioner
AND

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Revenue (Endowments) Department, A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District.

2. The Commissioner of Endowments Department(AP), Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Office at Gollapudi, Krishna District, A.P

3, The Executive Officer, Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam,
Srisailam, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

...Respondents

-_ _

against him, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently declare the
proceedings in Rc.No.A1/1326-A/2020 dated 11.06.2020 of the 3rd respondent
suspending the petitioner from service, as illegal and arbitrary and declare that
Suspension from service and filing of criminal cases against the petitioner is totally
unwarranted in view of the charges framed in charge memo dated 09.06.2020 and
direct the 3° respondent to give effect to the orders of the 2™ respondent vide
proceedings Re.No. C1/3536287/2020 dated 11-06-2020 transferring the petitioner from
3 respondent Devesthanam.

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend
G.O.Rt.No.518 Rev (Vigilance [V) dated 11.06.2020 of the {st respondent and the
consequential order of the 3rd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/1326-A/2020
dated 11.06.2020, pending disposal of WP 10269 of 2020, on the file of the High Court.

W.P. No, 10361 of 2020:
Between:

B. Mallikarjuna Reddy, S/o Late B. Kesava Reddy, aged about 52 years,
Superintendent, Sri Kalahastheeswara Swmyvari Devasthanam, Sri Kalahasthi, Chittoor
District
. Petitioner
AND

1, State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Revenue (Endowments) Department, A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District.

2. The Commissioner of Endowments Department(AP), Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Office at Gollapudi, Krishna District, A.P

3. The Executive Officer, Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam,
Srisailam, Kurnooi District, Andhra Pradesh.

. Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to
issue an order or direction, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the
G.O.Rt.No.§18 Rev (Vigilance IV) dated 11.06.2020 issued by the 1* respondent in so
far as directing ihe 3° respondent te suspend the petitioner and to file criminal cases
against him, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently declare the
proceedings in Re.No.A1/1326-A/2020 dated 11.06.2020 of the 3rd respondent
suspending the petitioner from service, as illegal and arbitrary and declare that
suspension from service and filing of criminal cases against the petitioner is totally
unwarranted in view of the charges framed in charge memo dated 09.06.2020 and
direct the 3° respondent to give effect to the orders of the 2" respondent vide
proceedings Re. NO.C1/3536287/2020 dated 11-06-2020 transferring the petitioner
from 3 respondent devasthanam.

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

consequential order of the 3 respondent vide proceedings Rce.No.A1/1326-A/2020
dated 11.08.2020, pending disposa! of WP 10362 of 2020, on the file of the High Court.

W.P. No. 10528 of 2020:

Between:

M. Savitri, W/o 8. Venkata Rao, Record Assistant, Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna

Swamyvari Devasthanm, Srisailam, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh
. Petitioner

AND

4. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government,
Revenue (Endowments) Department, A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,
Guntur District.

2 The Commissioner of Endowments Department(AP), Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Office at Gollapudi, Krishna District, A.P .

3. The Executive Officer, Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanam,
Srisailam, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

.. Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to
issue an order cr direction, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the
G.O.Rt.No.518 Rev (Vigilance IV) dated 11.06.2020 issued by the 1% respondent in so
far as directing the 3° respondent to suspend the petitioner and to file criminal cases
against him, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently declare the
proceedings in Re.No.A1/1326-A/2020 dated 11.06.2020 of the 3rd respondent
suspending the petitioner from service, as illegal and arbitrary and declare that
suspension from service and filing of criminal cases against the petitioner is totally
unwarranted in view of the charges framed in charge memo dated 09.06.2020.

A NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend
G.O.Rt.No.518 Rev (Vigilance IV) dated 11.06.2020 of the 'st respondent and the
consequential order of the 3rd respondent vide proceedings Re.No.A1/1326-A/2020
dated 11.06.202G. pending disposal of WP 10528 of 2020, on the file of the High Court.

The petition corning on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit
filed in support thereof and orders of High Court dated 09-06-2020 made in WP. No.
101174, 10221 and 10247 of 2020 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Bharat
Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner in ail petitions, and GP for Endowments for
Respondents Nos 1 and 2, and Sri G.V.Ramana Rao, Standing Counsel for respondent
No.3., the Court niade the following

ORDER:

In the batch of present writ petitions, the issues falling for consideration by this Court are similar and hence taken up together.

The petitioners are employees/ex-employees of Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy vari Devasthanam, Srisailam, hereinafter referred to as "Devasthanam".

Pursuant to a compiaint reporting certain anomalies in remittances made by the out sourcing employees(sponsored by Banks) working in the Donation Counters etc., on enquiry it was noticed that there was a glitch in the computer software which facilitated the personnel working in the counters to create fake I.Ds, thereby they have misappropriated amounts relating to Donations, Archanas and Seva tickets without showing the amounts in the remittances 'made to the cashier. The respondent No.1- Government issued memo dated 26.05.2020 with a direction to the respondent No.2- Commissioner of Endowments to depute Additional Commissioner, Endowments to conduct enquiry and submit report immediately within 7 days. The said Officer submitted a report dated 01.06.2020 of the employees who are responsible for misappropriation and insofar as the present writ petitioners are concerned reported that they failed to discharge their legitimate duties.

Pursuant to the said report, the respondent No.2 vide memo dated 02.06.2020, directed the respondent No.3-Executive Officer of the Devasthanam to take disciplinary action and criminal action against all the employees involved. In the light of the said memo, the respondent No.3 issued charge memos to the respective delinquents/writ petitioners and called for explanation. The respondent No.2 issued orders dated 11.06.2020 transferring the employees/petitioners to other Devasthanamas.

While so, the respondent No.1-Government, issued G.O.Rt.No.518 dated 11.06.2020 wherein the respondent No.3 was directed to file criminal cases against the petitioners, take steps to recover the misappropriated amounts proportionately and also to consider placiag them under suspension, pending enquiry so as to prevent them from sabotaging tné enquiry process and tampering relevant records.

Pursuant to the said G.O., dated 11.06.2020, the respondent No.3 on the same day issued proceedings dated 11.06.2020 placing the delinquents/petitioners under Suspension, pending enquiry. The said G.O., and the consequential proceedings of the respondent No.3 are challenged in the present writ petitions.

Heard Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu for Sri N.Bharat Babu, Advocate, Learned Government Pleader for Endowments, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri G.V.Ramana Rao, for respondent No.3.

While advancing arguments, the Learned Senior Counsel, at the outset submitted that the petitioners are not having grievance with regard to transfer and disciplinary action and are ready to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. Insofar as the orders of respondent No.1 dated 11.06.2020 and the consequential orders of the respondent No.3 suspending the petitioners, the Learned Senior Counsel submits that the same are unsustainable. By referring to the charges, he emphatically submits that the charges ex-facie would not warrant initiation of criminal action as also suspension of petitioners. He further submits that as per the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioners failed to discharge their duties and the same at the best amounts to negligence without any criminal! intention and do not warrant suspension and initiation of criminal action; against them. He submits that the petitioners have already been transferred to the other temples vide proceedings dated 11.06.2020 of the respondent No.2 which would ensure free enquiry and rule out apprehension of tampering of records. He aiso contends that the suspension order passed by the respondent No.3 is not sustainable fur the reason that the same has been passed under the directions of Government-respondent No.1 which is revisional authority and the same is unknown to service jurisprudence, The learned counsel submits that no charges of grave misconduct have been leveled against the petitioners and under any stretch of imagination, the same would

--_--

justify the initiation of criminal action. He submits that FIRs were registered against the persons who actually indulged in the misappropriation, they were released on bail and some of the employees, made certain remittances towards misappropriated amounts. The learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents suffers from non application of mind etc., The learned counsel relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions:

1) G.Govindu v. T.S.R.T.C., Rep.by its Managing Director [2017 (3) ALT 255];

2) G.Muralidhar v. Chairman and M.D., E.C.1.L. [1996(1) ALD 897];

3) P.V.Subbaiah v. Chairman & M.D., E.C.LL. [1998(2) ALD 44]

4) E.C.LL., v. G.Muralidhar [2001(10) SCC 43].

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Endowments submits that lack of supervision/dereliction of duties etc., by the writ petitioners and others resulted in huge financial loss to the Devasthanam as also loss of reputation, it should be treated as grave misconduct and contrary to public interest. She contends that the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners is not correct since the Government in the impugned order has not issued any direction to the respondent No.3 to place the writ petitioners under suspension, but that he 'may consider' placing them under suspension. She also submits that group of employees have indulged in misappropriation of amounts and unless they are suspended, there would be every possibility of tampering of evidence and disciplinary proceedings would be meddied with. She submits that the respondent No.3 acted as per his discretion, but not on the directions of Government as urged. While submitting that suspension pending enquiry is not a punishment, she also contends that the petitioners are also responsible for the irregularities and guilty of serious misconduct of Criminal Breach of Trust and criminal action is warranted. The learned Government Pleader in support of her contentions relied on the judgment in Writ Petition No.7618 of 2015 [B.Venkata Muralikrishna v. State of A.P., 2016(3) ALT 727 (DB)] dated 01.06.2015 and submits that the action of the respondents is correct and justified in public interest.

Sri G.V.Ramana Rao, Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 while supporting the contentions of learned Government Pleader submits that the transfer orders have been kept in abeyance and the petitioners have not been relieved. He submits that lack of supervision also amounts to misconduct and liable for action. He submits that the delinquents cannot be reinstated pending enquiry in the interest of Devasthanam, as lack of supervision lead to huge misappropriation. He submits that remittances of amounts would not absolve the wrong doers or act as a bar to initiate criminal action. He also raised contention of discrimination stating that FIRs against some of the employees were registered and therefore petitioners cannot be isolated or ignored. He contends that as and when criminal cases are registered, the petitioners may avail their remedies and criminal action cannot be interdicted at this stage. He submits that to put a check on the occurrénce of such incidents, the respondents are justified in initiating criminal action and placing the petitioners under suspension. He places reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions:

1)Tarachand Vyas v. Chairman and Disciplinary authority [1997(2) LLJ 26] = 97(4) SCC 565.

2) Union of India & Others v. J.Ahmed [ AIR 1979 SC 1022].

3) Writ Petition No.4553 of 2017 [M.Raghunadh v. T.S.R.T.C., 2017(2) ALT 650] dated 07.03.2017.

The contentions advanced on behalf of both sides are examined for the purpose of granting appropriate orders.

Insofar as the contentions with regard to suspension orders of the petitioners, the material on record would clearly disclose that pursuant to the proceedings of the respondent No.2 dated 09.06.2020, the respondent No.3 issued transfer orders dated 11.06.2020. However, the respondent No.3 in view of the orders of the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.518 dated 11.06.2020 issued orders suspending the petitioners on the same day i.¢., 11.06.2020. In this regard, the Learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondent No.3 has not acted independently, but as per the directions of the respondent No.1-Government which is revisional authority and the order of suspension is therefore vitiated. The said contention that the respondent No.1 is the revisional authority is not denied by the counsel for respondents, except stating that the Government is empowered to issue impugned directions. Be that as it may.

A perusal of the impugned G.O., would show that no such direction was issued to respondent No.3, but that he 'may consider' placing the delinquents under suspension. In such an event, even assuming that Government has power and the respondent No.3 has exercised his discretion as contended by the learned counsel for respondents, it is to be seen whether order of suspension was passed exercising discretion by the respondent No.3 or otherwise.

In G.Govindhu Vs. T.S.R.T.C., rep.by its M.D. [2017 (3) ALT 225] relied on by the Learned Senior Counsel, a learned Single Judge of the Composite High Court set out the principles relating to placing of an emptoyee under suspension and /nter ala held that the power to suspend must be exercised sparingly and should not be made as an administrative routine or automatic consequence of alleged disobedience and detailed assessment must be made. The learned Judge further opined that it should not be resorted to in all and sundry cases of allegations of misconduct and should be resorted to such course sparingly and in the larger interest of organization and in public interest. However, as seen from the impugned order of suspension, no exercise appears to have been undertaken by the respondent No.3. No assessment has been made before placing the employees under suspension and the suspension order suffers from non-application of mind.

' yore, E ws i Read 4 f vanes Lt ee pe? he eed Zs ag wget 5: A porte.

« 'home fre ., "pet Keae et i, oe eed ae $5 ~e poo % 3 oe bod ; ' heed oh * baal AIR 1963 SC L756). ¢ K TATA RAO SON ASSISTANT.RE GISTRAR pe , Cy o = ey fon Naeie, tf <e m.

fer @ For ASSISTANT R To, Qa Skm

-t07 . The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

The Commissioner of Endowments Depariment(AP}, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Office at Gollapudi, Krishna District, A.P The Executive Officer, Sri Brahmaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvari Devasthanar, Srisailam, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. (Addresses 1 to 3 by RPAD) One CC to Sri. N Bharat Babu, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One spare copy HUGH OSYURY DATED: 6607-2020 ORDEN WRI? PETETIONN NO: 1017, 10221, 10247, 10268, 10260, G86) and POS28 GF aoa DIRECTION ep

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati