K SUKHENDER REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner K. Sukhender Reddy, a conferred Member of the I.A.S. in the State of Andhra Pradesh Cadre, questioning the order dated 23-6-1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal., Hyderabad Bench in O.A.No. 640/97 on its file.

(2.) Anakapalle Town Police Station registered a case in Cr.No. 327/96 against an Advocate by name Pothi Naidu and others for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 469, 420 r/w. Section 120-B I.P.C This case is popularly known as "YELERU SCAM". The C.I.D. took up investigation in the said case. The offences mentioned in the said crime were committed prior to 1996 and the petitioner herein was working as the Joint Secretary to the Government of A.P. at the relevant time, in Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The investigation by the C.I.D. revealed that the petitioner Sukhender Reddy played a crucial role through series of acts of commissions and omissions which resulted in funds being released on priority basis to the advantage of the main accused Pothi Naidu, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to the accused involved in this case. Hence, a report was submitted to the Government of A.P. The 1st respondent (State of A.P.) having found the petitioner, prima facie, involved in the said offences, placed the petitioner under suspension by the order, dated 6-2-1997 (G.O.Rt.No. 700 GAD (SC-D) Department), by invoking Rule 3 (1) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. (For short the Rules, 1969). Thereafter, finding that the suspension of the petitioner under Rule 3 (1) of the Rules, 1969 was not proper, the 1st respondent by its order dated 12-3-1997 (G.O.Rt.No. 1217, General Administration (SC.D.) Department) placed the petitioner under suspension by invoking Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1969. Challenging the said order dated 12-3-1997 of suspension, the petitioner filed O.A.No. 640/97 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad alleging that the said order of suspension is illegal and contrary to law, that there is no criminal charge framed against him, that his name does not find place in the First Information Report in Cr.No. 327/96 of Anakapalle Town Police Station and that unless the charges are framed and communicated to a Member of an All India Service, he cannot be placed under suspension under Rule 3 (3) of the Rules, 1969. The 1st respondent resisted that application and filed a counter denying all the allegations made by the petitioner. The 1st respondent also pleaded that it was brought to its notice by the Investigating Agency that the petitioner had committed serious irregularities like release of funds for the land acquisition, suppressing the connected files, circulating altogether a different file showing selectivity in circulating the files without properly examining the files, processing the same for enhanced compensation amounts, showing extraordinary interest in the matters of the accused and that the petitioner was placed under suspension in the public interest. On a consideration of the submissions made by the Counsel on either side, and after perusing the necessary record submitted by the 1st respondent, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by its order dated 23-6-1997 dismissed that O.A. holding that the suspension of the petitioner is neither arbitrary nor unjustified. While dismissing that O.A. The Central Administrative Tribunal gave liberty to the petitioner herein to prefer an appeal to the Central Government against the impugned order, dated 12-3-1997. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training and the said appeal was dismissed by the Government of India by the order dated 23-9-1997. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 19-1-1998 questioning the order dated 23-6-1997 of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad branch in O.A.No. 640/97.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Noothi Ram Mohan Rao and the learned Advocate-General for the respondents.