SHAIK USMAN Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

(2.) Petitioner was working as Head Warder at Special Sub- Jail, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. Whileso, he was placed under suspension by impugned proceedings, dtd. 26/1/2025, on the allegations that he posted inappropriate and disrespectful message against an officer in Andhra Pradesh Jails Employees WhatsApp group, which is in violation of Rule 89 of the Andhra Pradesh Prisons Rules, 1979. Further, that while having telephonic conversation with Sri M.R. Ravi Kiran, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coastal Andhra Range, Rajamahendravaram, he secretly recorded the same without aforesaid officer's knowledge and posted in Andhra Pradesh Jails Employees WhatsApp group, which violated the right to privacy of the said officer, and lastly, he posted another message in the very same group defaming an officer that the said officer and his deceased mother played fraud on Government in getting Chief Minister Relief Fund, which yet again was construed to be a misconduct in violation of Rule 89 of the A.P. Prisons Rules, 1979 and Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The impugned orders came to be issued on 26/1/2025 when the said alleged acts are said to have been committed just a day before i.e. 25/1/2025. The 4th respondent immediately on the next day issued charge memo, dtd. 27/1/2025, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation within five days from the date of receipt of such notice, which was served on 31/1/2025. Meanwhile, petitioner submitted application, dtd. 27/1/2025, requesting for leave from 27/1/2025 to 2/2/2025 to attend his wife's medical treatment, which came to be rejected by the 4th respondent on the same day, as the said application did not contain necessary details. Petitioner stated to have been served another memo, dtd. 31/1/2025, with presumptuous and assumptuous allegations, aggrieved by the same, petitioner constrained to file the present writ petition.

(3.) The 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit inter alia stating that petitioner while working as Head Warder in Special Sub-Jail, Bhimavaram, has been placed under suspension, by proceedings, dtd. 26/1/2025, and the allegations on which he has been placed under suspension are being enquired into. So far no charge-memo has been issued and the allegation that 4th respondent issued charge memo, dtd. 27/1/2025 is misplaced as the said memo only requires the petitioner to submit certain information which is being collected in the process of enquiry. It is also stated that against the order of suspension, an appeal is provided before the appellate Authority under Rule 34(iii) of the A.P. Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, and so, petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal. So far as allegations are concerned, it is stated that based on news item telecasted on 21/1/2025 by Maha News Channel, which depicted that prisoner from semi-open prison, Rajamahendravaram, was shown entering into Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coastal Andhra Range, Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, enquired into said issue and found Head Warder to be responsible for recording such video from an electronic device and therefore, he was placed under suspension. In furtherance to said act, the petitioner responding to the statement said to have been made by Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, during such enquiry, a message was posted in the WhatsApp group on 25/1/2025 in a way demeaning in threatening tone the higher officer, which was in violation of Rule 89 of the A.P. Prison Rules, 1979. It is further stated that the petitioner further has recorded the conversation with Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and posted in the WhatsApp group on the very same day. The petitioner has secretly recorded the private telephone conversation he had with Deputy Inspector General of Prisons and posted the same in the very same group, which is in clear act of misconduct besides violating right to privacy of the said higher officer. It is further stated that yet another such message was posted in the WhatsApp group on the very same day making certain wild allegations against an officer and his mother committing fraud on Government in getting Chief Minister Relief Fund granted for medical treatment. All these incidents are in clear violation of various Rules of A.P. Prisons Rules, 1979, which call for severe punishment. It is also stated that though petitioner has been placed under suspension and directed not to leave the headquarters without obtaining prior permission of 4th respondent, in utter disregard and disobedience, petitioner moved out of the headquarters besides avoiding to receive the memos, dtd. 27/1/2025 and 31/1/2025, which also constituted yet another act of disobedience making him punishable. In fact, in the memo, dtd. 31/1/2025, 4th respondent has also mentioned that petitioner was avoiding to receive the memos by not being available in the headquarters though his request for grant of leave was rejected and even 4th respondent tried to serve the said memos through WhatsApp and having received the same, petitioner was not cooperating with disciplinary proceedings by not responding to the memo, dtd. 27/1/2025. Therefore, as the enquiry is pending and petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry, no interference is called for at this stage.