G MALLESHAM Vs. APGENCO HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the writ petitions are filed against the order of suspension as under:

(2.) All the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in P. Rajender v. Union of India, 2001 5 ALD 290as well as in W. A. No. 2027 of 2005 dated 20.10.2005 [Chief Engineer v. S. K. Tajuddin]. Learned counsel for the petitioners, based on the above decisions, contend that the alleged offence registered against the petitioners relates to events outside the employment and has no nexus between the relationship of employer and employee. Placing reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in P. R. Nayak v. Union of India, 1972 AIR(SC) 554it is contended that there is no public interest whatsoever and even otherwise the suspension is unduly prolonged without any review and reconsideration and as such, in any case, the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind. Reliance is also placed upon an unreported judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in WP.No. 26416 of 2011 dated 21.09.2011 and it is contended that acts and omissions against the petitioners do not involve any moral turpitude and keeping the petitioners under suspension does not any way help the organization, particularly, when no disciplinary proceedings are initiated. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in Ashok Gaur v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 5 SLR 547for the proposition that even in cases where employee has remained in custody exceeding 48 hours for the alleged criminal offence, it is not obligatory on the part of the appointing authority to put the officer under suspension, but he has to apply his mind and exercise discretion, as there is a stigma attached to an order of punishment. A judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in P. Lingamurthy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1998 6 SLR 349is also relied upon. However, the said case deals with prolonged suspension of more than 31 months, which was held to be unjustified on the facts and circumstances of that case. Another decision of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad (as His Lordship then was) in Jagjeet Singh v. State of UP, 1996 1 UPLBEC 405is relied upon, which deals with a case of deemed suspension and Rule 49(2)(A) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1930 was held to be arbitrary. Similarly, another judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Dr. Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P.,2002 3 SLR 39is relied upon wherein the order of suspension passed a decade ago and continued without holding an enquiry was held illegal.

(3.) In support of WP.No. 2743 of 2012 (item 3 herein) wherein petitioner is a RTC Constable, it is alleged that while on duty at Tyre Retreading Shop (TRS), Warangal, the petitioner absconded from duty from 05.20 PM to 06.00 PM and he was arrested for attempting to murder his wife, during the aforesaid period, when he was unthorizedly absent from his duty. Petitioner was, therefore, arrested on the same day at 07.15 PM. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decisions, referred to above, to contend that the alleged criminal offence relates to private life of the petitioner.