G SRINIVAS Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

(2.) Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner submits that based on the Newspaper caption "Saraswathi Shakshiga Dopidi Parwam', published in Shakshi daily Telugu Newspaper of Nirmal District dtd. 26/11/2017, the Anti Corruption Bureau, Adilabad Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.02/ACB-KAD/2020 against the Writ Petitioner/Accused No.2 and other accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 (a), 13 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sec. 13 (1)(c)&(d) and 12 of P.C. Act, 1988 and also on other I.P.C. offences, on 4/7/2020, after lapse of three years. He further submits that even though the investigation is pending with the ACB, the 3rd respondent suspended the writ petitioner vide order dtd. 23/6/2021 and also issued a charge memo. He further submits that no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the 3rd respondent, who is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings before issuing the charge memo. He further submits that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and keeping the writ petitioner under suspension is per se illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the ratio laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.B.Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2020 (6) ALD 33 (A) (DB) and further submits that even after lapse of two years from the date of registration of FIR no charge sheet has been filed as contemplated under law till today.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that after receiving the preliminary enquiry report from the Director General, ACB, the Government, vide Memo dtd. 13/5/2021 directed the second respondent to keep the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. In compliance of the same, the third respondent suspended the petitioner from service vide proceedings dtd. 23/6/2021. He further submitted that the petitioner also submitted his explanation requesting to reinstate him into service. The learned standing counsel further submitted that the Review Committee reviewed the suspension cases arising out of the investigations conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad on 13/5/2021 and the Committee after going through the details of each case and keeping in view the gravity of allegation with reference to the relevant rules and orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.86 GA (Ser.C) Department dtd. 8/3/1994; G.O.Ms.No.526 GA (Ser.C) Department dtd. 19/8/2008 read with G.O.Ms.No.2285 GA (Ser.C) Department dtd. 18/5/2012, recommended to continue the writ petitioner under suspension for a further period of Six months and, therefore, the 3rd respondent is not competent to revoke the suspension imposed against the writ petitioner and also not competent to finalize the disciplinary proceedings.