THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.5447 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following prayer: “to declare the action of respondents specifically 5th Respondent indiscriminately suspend the service of petitioner without conducting proper Inquiry nor taken consideration of explanation submitted by the petitioner is illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions and violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, principles of natural justice. Consequently, direct the respondents specifically 5th Respondent to set aside the Order of suspension passed by DEO Prakasam Vide Rc.No.1916/B5/2024, dated 01.03.2025 and reinstate the service of petitioner and to pass such other order.” 2. Heard Sri Gundala Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel, appearing for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – II, appearing for the respondents 1 to 7, Sri Mattegunta Sudhir, learned standing counsel, appearing for 8th respondent and Sri Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel appearing for 9th respondent. 2 CGR, J W.P. No.5447 of 2025 3. Petitioner is working as Second Grade Teacher at MPPS Polireddypalem, Prakasam District. Petitioner has been placed under suspension by impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.1916/B5/2024, dated 01.03.2025, issued by 5th respondent. The petitioner alleged to have participated in political party meeting held on 28.12.2024 and since such activity of government servant being against Rule 19 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct Rules), 1964 (herein after, for short „Rules, 1964‟), pending disciplinary proceedings, petitioner is stated to be placed under suspension. Assailing the same, petitioner preferred present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on mere participation in political meeting, petitioner cannot be proceeded with disciplinary action, by placing him under suspension, further that petitioner disputed that he participated in the meeting alleged to have been held on 28.12.2024. He has placed on record the photographs as Annexure – P9, which are stated to be taken while meeting was conducted and disputes that the person shown therein as claimed by respondents to be petitioner. He besides placed reliance on the orders passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.4980 of 2024 to contend that based on mere 3 CGR, J W.P. No.5447 of 2025 photograph alleged to have been taken, disciplinary action could not have been initiated by coming to conclusion that such photograph either directly or indirectly indicate participation in the political meeting or election programme. He further contended that the power of suspension should not be exercised in a casual manner and on vindictive misuse of power, care and caution should be taken while placing delinquent under suspension having regard to prima facie strong case on the allegations involved, and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal1. 5. 5th respondent filed counter inter alia stating that based on complaint received against petitioner that he was actively involved in political affairs and attending to political party meetings, in particular meeting held on 28.12.2024 at Singarayakonda, which is impermissible under the service regulations, a preliminary enquiry was called from team of officers consisting of Deputy Educational Officer and Mandal Educational Officer and based on the said preliminary enquiry and considering the report dated 18.02.2025, prima facie, it was found that petitioner participated in political meeting held on 28.12.2024 in 1 (2013) 16 SCC 147 4 CGR, J W.P. No.5447 of 2025 Singarayakonda, which is in violation of Rule 19 of Rules, 1964, therefore, the competent authority has in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, issued impugned suspension orders exercising powers under Rule 8(1)(a) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter, for short „Rules, 1991‟). Along with counter respondents have also filed the report dated 18.02.2025 submitted by Deputy Educational Officer and Mandal Educational Officer and also the charge memo dated 05.04.2025 issued to petitioner. Since the enquiry is going on and that serious allegations of misconduct are levelled against petitioner, it is contended that no interference is called for at this stage. It is further contended that against the order of suspension, petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 33(a) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, without exhausting the same and establishing the exceptions carved out to invoke jurisdiction of this Court, the present writ petition cannot be maintained. 6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 7. Rule 8(1)(a) contemplates the disciplinary authority to exercise powers of suspension. There is no doubt that such 5 CGR, J W.P. No.5447 of 2025 powers of suspension are to be exercised only in case when there is strong prima facie case against the delinquent employee and the allegations are serious in nature, resulting in punishment. 8. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal’s case (supra 1), observed at Paragraph No.21 as follows: “21. 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 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. The authority should also take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry.” 9. Testing above principles to facts of present case, the allegations against the petitioner in the present case are that he participated in the political meeting held on 28.12.2024, which is in contravention of Rule 19 (1) of Rules, 1964. Rule 19 of Rules, 1964 reads thus: 6 CGR, J W.P. No.5447 of 2025 “19. (1) No Government employee shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organization in respect of which there is slightest reasons to think that the organisation has a political aspect and takes part in politics; nor shall be participate in, subscribe in aid of, or assistant in any other manner, any political movement or activity.” 10. The two men committee report dated 18.02.2025, considered the complaint against petitioner and also recorded the statements of persons who are witnesses to the meeting and prima facie came to conclusion that petitioner participated in the aforesaid political activity. Further, photographs which have been secured relating to the said meeting held on 28.12.2024 at 15:38 hours prima facie show that political activity was happening and petitioner with Mask attended the same, which though petitioner seriously disputed. Whether petitioner participated in the said meeting or not and that the person who is shown in the photographs is identifiable as him or not and the statements of witness as gathered during enquiry by two men committee to be valid, indicating petitioner‟s participation are all questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. Fact remains that prima facie there is an allegation against the 7 CGR, J W.P. No.5447 of 2025 petitioner that he participated in political activity which clearly amounts to grave misconduct or indiscipline within the mischief of Rule 19 of Rules, 1964, which requires enquiry. Petitioner has also been issued charge memo dated 05.04.2025 on the aforesaid allegation. 11. One of the requirement of Rule 8(1)(a) being that any suspension should be in contemplation of initiation of disciplinary action and in view of the fact that disciplinary action has already been initiated by issuing a charge memo, it cannot be said that the power of suspension has been exercised for extraneous reasons. Though learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the judgment of this Court in B.Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, which related to the case of removal from service, on facts, the same has no application to the present case. In that particular case, the entire enquiry was concluded based on photographs without any other evidence, so this Court having found that the same being inadequate and lack of evidence, set aside the removal order, whereas in the present case, the matter is still at the stage of enquiry. So, question of inadequacy of evidence does not arise. 2 W.P. No.4980 of 2024, dated 20.03.2024 8 CGR, J W.P. No.5447 of 2025 12. The submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader that against order of suspension, petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedy of appeal under Rules 33(1)(i) r/w 34(1)(iii) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, also has considerable force, petitioner has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances under which this Court should entertain writ petition when there is an alternative remedy. 13. In this view of the matter and for the reasons stated above, this Court finds that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. _______________________ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J 01.05.2025 SS