Andhra Pradesh High Court Slams Illegal Suspension Without Enquiry | Orders Officials to Treat Suspension Period as Duty | Directs Grant of Notional Benefits Without Delay
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Challa Gunaranjan held that the suspension order issued against a government employee without initiating any disciplinary proceedings was in violation of the applicable rules. The Court directed the competent authorities to consider the employee’s representation for regularizing the suspension period as duty and to take a decision within a specified time frame. No costs were awarded in the matter.
The writ petition was filed by an individual who had been working as Ward Sanitation and Environment Secretary under Narsapuram Municipality. The petitioner challenged the action of the authorities in placing him under suspension and subsequently reinstating him without extending associated service benefits, such as seniority, promotion, and treatment of the suspension period as duty.
The suspension was initially imposed by the 4th respondent on 16.05.2023, citing certain allegations and a proposed departmental enquiry. However, no further disciplinary action followed. The petitioner was reinstated into service on 25.10.2023 and continued to discharge duties thereafter.
The petitioner contended that despite reinstatement, his service register was marked with a red entry concerning the suspension, which had a stigmatic effect. Moreover, in the absence of any pending or initiated disciplinary proceedings, the denial of service benefits including promotional opportunities and the regularization of the suspension period was arbitrary and contrary to established legal provisions.
Invoking Fundamental Rule 54(B), the petitioner’s counsel submitted that where no disciplinary action is pending or contemplated, the period of suspension must be treated as duty for all service-related benefits.
On behalf of the 4th respondent, written instructions were submitted confirming that while the suspension was initiated by the 4th respondent, it was actually the 5th respondent who had the authority to conduct a disciplinary enquiry. As per the record, the 5th respondent had not initiated any proceedings to date.
It was also stated by the respondents that the red entry in the service register was merely a record of the suspension and that, in the event of exoneration, the petitioner would be entitled to full service benefits including the treatment of the suspension period as duty.
Nonetheless, the Court recorded that, even after a considerable lapse of time, neither the 4th nor the 5th respondent had initiated any action. This raised significant concern regarding the legitimacy of the initial suspension.
The petitioner argued that he was being denied rightful service benefits based on an anticipated disciplinary action which never materialized. This denial, he claimed, was without basis in law.
The Court recorded, “Admittedly, in the present case, petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.05.2023 and later, the same came to be revoked on 25.10.2023.”
It further stated, “Though 4th respondent has suspended the petitioner on the pretext of conducting disciplinary action, apparently even according to the instructions placed on record, 4th respondent is not competent authority to initiate the aforesaid disciplinary action, rather it is the 5th respondent who is competent enough.”
Addressing the delay, the Court recorded, “However, even 5th respondent as on today not initiated any disciplinary action even after lapse of almost two years. The same itself would go to show that respondents are not contemplating to initiate any disciplinary proceedings.”
With reference to Rule 8(1), the Court stated, “The powers of suspension provided under Rule 8(1) presuppose that the respondents would initiate enquiry. In the present case the very basis for initiation of such enquiry found to be myth in view of the fact that no such action has been initiated as of now, the very issuance of suspension proceedings is clearly in violation and contrary to the aforesaid provision.”
On the question of denial of benefits, the Court observed, “The claim of petitioner that respondents, under guise of anticipated departmental enquiry, having placed petitioner under suspension, are not extending the notional benefits including that of treating the suspension period as on duty, is completely unjustified and illegal has considerable force.”
In light of the above findings, the Court granted the petitioner the liberty to submit a representation to the fourth and fifth respondents within two weeks. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondents were directed to examine the matter and issue appropriate orders within a further period of eight weeks, strictly in accordance with law. The Court made no order as to costs. Additionally, it directed that any miscellaneous petitions pending consideration in the case would stand closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Harsha Vardhana Rao, Advocate
For the Respondents: GP for Services IV, K. Sreedhara Murthy (Standing Counsel for Municipalities and Municipal Corporation Services), GP for Services I, GP for Village and Ward Secretariats
Case Title: Mohammad Shanoor Khan v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010298182023
Case Number: W.P. No. 15505 of 2023
Bench: Justice Challa Gunaranjan
[Read/Download order]
