AKASA REDDY Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ADONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order R C. B. No. 8290 of 1971, dated 14th August, 1971 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, placing petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into certain allegations against him. The allegation is that one Harijan by name Thayappa of Jampapuram Village had filed a petition alleging that the petitioner, the Village Munsif of the said village accompanied by four village servants came to his hut on 3rd June, 1971 and attempted to dismantle the hut. Again on 19th June, 1971 the petitioner with four talayaris and accompanied by some caste ryots of the village went to the village of the said Thayappa, and highhandedly and unauthorisedly dismantled the hut and that when the inmates of the hut protested, they pushed them aside and pulled down the hut.

(2.) I understand the enquiry is not yet over. This writ petition Was admitted on 7th September, 1971, and a direction was given that the records should be submitted after the enquiry was over. But it is surprising that the enquiry has not yet been conducted.

(3.) In this writ petition the main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of suspension was made by the Revenue Divisional Officer under the instructions of the Collector, who is an appellate authority, and that therefore the order is vitiated. It is submitted that the procedure adopted had deprived the petitioner of the right of appeal provided under the relevant rules. But I do not think this submission is well founded. The Collector addressed a D. O. letter on 2nd July, 1971 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, which reads as follows : "Please recall my instructions in regard to putting Sri Thayappa of Jampapuram in possession of the house site from which he was evicted and enabling him to rebuild his hut in that land. The Government have called for a report on this. Please visit the village and see that he is resettled in the bite from which he was evicted. Patta should immediately be granted for the house site. You are convinced that the Harijan is being terrorised but due to lack of evidence no action is being taken. The complaint of Sri Thayappa is quite clear : he has named the Village Munsif as the person who demolished his hut. I, therefore, suggest that the Village Munsif be suspended straightaway and then an attempt made to conduct an enquiry". It is on the basis of this letter that the impugned order of suspension was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. This letter is also referred to in the order of suspension by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It appears to me therefore that the decision to place the petitioner under suspension was taken by the Collector himself and the Revenue Divisional Officer had implemented this Order. Under rule 54 cf the Village Office's Service Rules the Collector himself acted as primary authority. Rule 64 states: "An officer competent to suspend a village officer or village servant as a measure of punishment may also place under suspension such a village officer or village servant from service pending investigation or enquiry into charges * * *" Rule 52 specifies the officers who can impose punishments on village officers. Under the said rule ''the Revenue Divisional Officer or any superior authority may suo motu or on a complaint, after conducting an enquiry", impose the punishments enumerated therein. Therefore not only the Revenue Divisional Officer, but even a superior authority could impose a punishment specified under the said rule. Rule 54 read with rule 52 therefore confers a power on the Revenue Divisional Officer or any superior authority to pass orders of suspension pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges against any village officer. The Collector being the superior authority could therefore validly exercise the power under rule 54 to place the petitioner under suspension. In the recent decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Naga Lakshmniah v. The State, it was held that the Government, which has concurrent power with the power which the Director of Agriculture has, to suspend pending enquiry, can exercise the power of suspension. In the said case it was held that rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules empowers the Government to exercise the power conferred by rule 13 and pass orders of suspension pending enquiry into charges. The fact that the Government is also the appellate authority would not preclude the Government from exercising the power to pass orders of suspension pending enquiry.