GOVERNMENT OF A P Vs. S SAISWARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the Government challenging the order of' the A.P Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal) passed in OA No.9610/2002 dated 22.10.2002 setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada, wherein the respondent herein was kept under suspension A very peculiar procedure has been adopted by the Government in the instant case. The respondent, who is applicant before thc Tribunal, was working as Excise Sub inspector at Gudivada at the relevant point of time. While so he was suspended by an order dated 29.6,1999 from service The said suspension order was challenged by him in OA No.5226/99. The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the Government as well as the respondent herein allowed the OA and quashed the order of suspension and directed the authorities to review the suspension of the respondent taking into consideration the proceedings dated 22.12.1999 of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. Accordingly m pursuance of the order of the Tribunal the suspension was reviewed and the respondent was reinstated into service on 22-9-2000 pending finalisation of ACB case. But however, the respondent was again placed under suspension by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada by an order dated 10-10-2002. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal allowed the O.A by an order dated 22-10-2002 which is now assailed in this writ petition by the Government.

(2.) The learned Government pleader submits that thc order of thc 'Tribunal is quite illegal and not-sustainable in law as it is always open to the disciplinary authority to place thc respondent herein under suspension after charge sheet is filed in the Criminal Court. In the instant case, the Government has directed the Dy. Commissioner of prohibition and Excise to pass suspension order and, therefore, in compliance of the order of the Government, the suspension order was passed. Thus the learned Government Pleader contends that the order of suspension legal and passed by competent authority.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that when once earlier order of suspension was set aside and became final, the respondents cannot again suspend the respondent on the ground of pendency of ACB case. Heard both the counsel.