Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
T. Devender vs Associate Director Research, ... on 29 October, 1993
Author: P. Venkatarama Reddi
Bench: P. Venkatarama Reddi
ORDER Venkatarama Reddi, J.
1. The petitioner is an employee of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, employed as Sub-Assistant at Regional Agricultural Research Station, Palem, Mahaboobnagar district. He is challenging in this writ petition the order dated 4-8-1993 passed by the 1st respondent suspending the petitioner from service with effect from 4-8-1993 until further orders. The order of suspension is based upon a letter dated 3-8-1993 sent by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bijanapally. The impugned order of suspension read as follows :
"Taking into consideration the involvement of Sri T. Devender, Sub-Assistant of this office vide reference cited, he is suspended from service w. e. f. 4-8-1993 until further orders. He should produce a clearance certificate from the Police authorities which will be submitted to the Registrar, A. P. Agricultural University for necessary action in his case as per rules."
In the first information report filed in Crime No. 48/93 in the Court of the J. F. C. M. Nagarkurnool, the names of seven accused are mentioned. The name of the 4th accused in Daveedu son of Masanna. The F. I. R. was given by one G. Kandoor Kamulaiah, complaining that the accused named in F. I. R. extorted some money and jewellery threatening to expose him for his alleged involvement in a murder case. The petition was arrested on 24-6-1993 and released on bail on 25-6-1993 on executing a bond for Rs. 5,000/- with a surety for the like sum. It was further stipulated in the ball order that the accused shall appear before the Station House Officer, Bijanapally on every Sunday between 10 and 11 a.m. until further orders. It is the case of the petitioner that the case was booked against him under a mistaken impression that he was the person by name Daveedu. It is also alleged that the case was foisted against his family members on account of village politics. The alleged offence took place on 24-4-1993.
2. In the counter it is stated the Sub-Inspector of Bijanapally by his letter dated 3-8-1993 reported that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Section 384 I.P.C. that he was arrested on 24-6-1993 and remanded to judicial custody on 25-6-1993 and that he was released on bail on the same day. It is also stated in the counter that the 1st respondent acted on the basis of the report received from the Sub-inspector of Police and placed the petitioner under suspension under Clause (ii) of Regulation 13 of the A. P. Agricultural University Conditions of service Regulations. The relevant Regulation reads as follows :
"An employee may be placed under suspension from the University Service pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the interest of the University; provided that no employee shall be kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months without the approval of the Board."
It is not the case of the respondents that any departmental enquiry is contemplated or pending against the petitioner with reference to the incident giving rise to the criminal case. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police discloses that the petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal case and the case was under investigation by the police. It is contended that the suspension of an University employee who has been arrested on alleged criminal misconduct which is under investigation by the police is in the interest of the University and therefore justified. It is clearly seen that the order of suspension followed rather mechanically on the basis of the letter sent by the S. I. of Police. Assuming that the expression investigation into grave charge' occurring in Regulation 13 (ii) includes investigation by the police into a criminal offence, it does not follow that in all cases of investigation and arrest the suspension should be ordered as a matter of course. The authority competent to suspend the employee from service is expected to apply its independent mind to the facts and circumstances and reach a conclusion whether it would be in the interests of the University to keep the employee under suspension. A mere information from the police that the petitioner may be kept under suspension is not sufficient to order suspension. There is nothing on record to show that the 1st respondent considered the desirability of suspension independently. Evidently he acted merely of the police report. This inference is reinforced by the recital in the suspension order that is shall remain in force till the petitioner produces a 'Clearance Certificate from the Police authorities.' Thus, the 1st respondent has virtually abdicated his discretion and failed to Act as an independent functionary exercising powers under the Rules. A bald order stating that the suspension shall remain in force till the clearance from the police is obtained, is wholly unsustainable.
3. Another aspect to be taken into account is that the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the offence, took place some time in June 1993. The petitioner was arrested on 24-6-1993 and he was released on bail on 25-6-1993. There is no information about the result of the investigation or about the filing of the charge-sheet or the evidence, if any, available against the petitioner. It cannot be presumed that the investigation is still pending; the presumption is otherwise. Thus, the first limb of clause (ii) of Regulation 13 viz., pendency of investigation into grave charge by the police which according to the 1st respondent, formed the basis for suspension, no longer exists. Of course, there could be a controversy on the question whether an investigation into grave charge comprehends within its scope investigation by police into the alleged offence. Assuming that the contention of the learned Counsel is to be accepted to this regard, there is really no justifiable basis for prolonging the suspension indefinitely on the supposition that the investigation is still in progress. It on the other hand the investigation by the police has been completed, there could be no scope to invoke the first limb of Regulation 13 (ii). As far as the second limb is concerned viz., 'the pendency of enquiry into grave charge', there is admittedly no material before the respondent to say that a charge sheet has been filed and the prosecution is pending in the criminal Court against the petitioner. As the counter-affidavit shows, that is not even the ground on which the suspension has been ordered. At any rate, even if the pendency of prosecution in a criminal Court against the petitioner could be considered to be a relevant ground under the second limb of Regulation 13 (ii), as already noticed, the competent authority did not apply its mind at all into the facts and circumstances connected with the said prosecution and he never came to an independent conclusion that the suspension is in the interests of the University having regard to the gravity of the charge or the prima facie material against the petitioner.
4. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned order of suspension cannot be sustained any longer. The writ petition is therefore allowed with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith into service without prejudice to any action that may be taken against him in the light of the ultimate outcome of the criminal case, if any, launched against the petitioner. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs.