B.POCHAIAH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is working as Junior Assistant in Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Komuravelli village and mandal, Siddipet district. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging proceedings No.S/M/DK/80/2020 dated 10.6.2020 suspending him from service and continuing him under suspension. He seeks consequential direction to reinstate him with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner contended that merely based on media reporting alleging dumping of laddu prasadam, disciplinary action ought not to have been initiated without verifying the facts. He would submit that as seen from the panchanama recorded on 20.3.2020, higher officials have taken a decision to distribute all the laddus made by them and accordingly, laddus were distributed. While distributing the laddus, it was noticed that few laddus were infected with fungus or were broke into small pieces, therefore they could not be distributed. Since lockdown was imposed on the intervening night of 23/24th March, 2020 and immediately entire premises was sealed, no immediate steps could be taken to dump those laddus. As soon as the temple was reopened, those laddus were transported to dumping yard. He would submit that there was no occasion for the petitioner to inform the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, as he was not available. He would submit that even assuming that what was done by him was erroneous and that higher officials ought to have been informed, on a trivial allegation, there was no justification to place petitioner under suspension. There is no scope to tamper of evidence. There is no allegation of misappropriation or financial embezzlement. Therefore, suspension ought not have been resorted to. The disciplinary authority got swayed by reporting in the electronic media and the newspapers and without applying his mind, resorted to suspension. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not even looked into. By placing reliance on the decision in G.Govindu Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, 2017 3 ALD 755 he would submit that the competent authority cannot resort to suspension in a routine manner, without application of mind and for trivial allegations and more so when there is no public interest involved. At the most the petitioner could have been transferred. He would further submit that on consideration of his explanation, the suspension ought to have been reviewed and there is no justification to further continue the petitioner under suspension.

(3.) Facts on record would disclose that on 20.3.2020 Commissioner/2nd respondent issued directions to distribute the laddu prasadam already made to the devotes and villagers free of costs. On 20.3.2020 a resolution was passed deciding to distribute 23293 laddus and accordingly on 23.3.2020 laddus were distributed. Consequent to the lockdown imposed from the midnight of 23.3.2020 due to pandemic, the temple was closed and it was reopened only on 6.6.2020. On 7.6.2020, it has come to the notice of the Executive Officer that petitioner dumped 5000 laddus on the night of 6.6.2020 in the dumping yard and the same was reported in the electronic media on 7.6.2020. Petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. On 9.6.2020 petitioner claimed to have submitted his explanation. On 10.6.2020 proceedings were issued by the Executive Officer suspending the petitioner from service and also framed six charges and called for his explanation. Petitioner claimed to have submitted his explanation on 16.6.2020.