IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENT PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4712 OF 2025 Between: J.Ravi Nayak, S/o. Baloji Nayak, Aged 39 years, Village Revenue Officer (VRO) Sarikondapalem, Vaddemgunta Secretariat, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Velagapudi Guntur District. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Palnadu District. 3. The Thasildar, Bollapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the 2 respondent in issuance of the impugned proceedings in RC No. 49/2025- A3 dated 10.1.2025 placing the petitioner under suspension as a selective one basing on a frivolous complaint said to have been submitted by one Sri Yeswanth Singh of Haryana State is illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and Service Jurisprudence and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and to pass necessary order or nd r* orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to suspend the impugned proceeding in RC No. 49/2025-A3 dated 10.1.2025 issued by the 2""* respondent by placing the petitioner under suspension pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.R.SRINIVAS REPRESENTING SRI A.SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI S.RAJU, ASST.GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010082952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4712/2025 Between: 1.J RAVI NAYAK, S/0. BALOJI NAYAK, AGED 39 YEARS, VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER (VRO) SARIKONDAPALEM, VADDEMGUNTA SECRETARIAT, BOLLAPALLI MANUAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BUILDINGS, AMARAVATI, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT SECRETARIAT 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PALNADU DISTRICT 3.THETHASILDAR, BOLLAPALLI MANUAL, PALNADU DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT{S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuance of the impugned proceedings in RC No. 49/2025-A3 dated 10.1.2025 placing the petitioner under suspension as a selective one basing on a frivolous complaint said to have been submitted by one Sri Yeswanth Singh of Haryana State is illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and Service Jurisprudence and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and to pass necessary order or 2 orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceeding in RC No. 49/2025-A3 dated 10.1.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent by placing the petitionerunder suspension pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass necessary order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.ASREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following; ;;ORDER;; Heard Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri A.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 to 3. nd 2. Impugning the proceedings issued by the 2 respondent vide Rc.No.49/2025-A3, dated 10.01.2025 (Ex.PI), placing the petitioner under suspension, the above writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit placing the petitioner under suspension is selective and the same is impermissible. He would also submit that regarding the same incident, the complainant already approached the Hon’ble Lokayukta. The complainant filed W.P.No.31131 of 2022 and the same is pending. He also would submit that the complainant filed a suit for permanent injunction O.S.No.157 of 2023 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda, which is pending. He also would submit that acting upon the complaint, the Collector directed the Tahsildar to conduct a detailed inquiry 3. 3 and to submit a report, and pending the same, placing the petitioner under suspension, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of Natural Justice. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would , submit that the 2^^ respondent, because of the seriousness of the allegations, placed the petitioner under suspension, pending inquiry. He also would submit that against the order an appeal would lie under Rule 33 of ARCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. He would also submit that the suspension is not permanent. After receipt of the report, the 2''^ respondent will take appropriate action as per the rules. Point for consideration is: 5. Whether the proceedings vide Rc.No.49/2025-A3, dated 10.01.2025 (Ex.PI) is legally sustainable? Before proceeding further let the Court examine the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India qua suspension pending inquiry. Though the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not confer limited powers, however, such discretionary power has to be exercised within the self-imposed limitations by the Courts. If the order of suspension suffers from malafides or arbitrary or in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice or against the statutory or constitutional provisions, in that case, the Court can interfere with the proceedings while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Cne should not be oblivious that the effect of the order of suspension is that the employee continues to be a member of service of the employer but is not permitted to work and further, during the period of suspension he is paid a subsistence allowance. In Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal\ the Apex Court held that the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. Suspension should be made only in a case where there is a strong prima-facie 6. 7. (2013)16 see 147 ■ ^ 4 case against the delinquent employee and the allegations involving moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of superior authority are there, or there is a strong prima facie case against him, if proved, would ordinarily result in reduction in rank, removal or dismissal from service. 8. Rule 8 of ARCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 deals with suspension. Rule 8(1) prescribes that a member of a Service may be placed under suspension from service. (a) Where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. A perusal of the extracted Rule would indicate that an employee shall be placed under suspension when the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending. In the case at hand, a perusal of Ex.P1, the proceedings impugned complainant alleged that the petitioner was involved in the collection of Rs.11,46,000/- regarding illegal mutations in favour of Sri Pulisetty Venkata Ramanjaneyulu and the authority is contemplating disciplinary proceedings. 9. Indeed, the Collector-2"^ respondent directed the Tahsildar to conduct an inquiry and. submit a report within one (01) week. When a serious allegation of this nature regarding the collection of Rs.11,46,000/- is made against the petitioner, the Collector-2"'^ respondent placed the petitioner under suspension. Suspension, pending inquiry, of course, serious consequences, however, facts of each case we have to consider. 10. 11. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner In K.Sukhendar Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and antoher^, does not apply to the facts at hand. The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the suspension of the petitioner therein, non-completion of inquiry for about 2)4 years and also involvement of many other senior officers. ' (1999) 6SCC 257 y 5 However, in the case at hand, the main allegation against the petitioner .is against alleged involvement in the collection of Rs. 11,46,000/- which is prima-facie, grave misconduct. Of course, this Court is not recording any finding about the guilt of the delinquent at this juncture. The complaint averments, prima-facie, show the involvement of the petitioner. The correctness or otherwise will be decided in a regular inquiry. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. At this juncture learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will avail alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Rule 33 to the appellate authority. Since Rule 33 prescribes an appeal against the suspension, liberty is given to file an appeal before the appellate authority. If such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal and pass an appropriate order strictly as per the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri A.Sreedhar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4712 of 2025 g 2^ mar 2025 ^ Curreni section - ^ ^^£^PATCH®S''< DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS