S. Premnath vs Superintending Engineer (R and B)

B. Sudershan Reddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services II. At the request of the learned counsel the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposed of at the admission stage.

This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, dated 14-6-2002, made in O.A. No. 2940 of 1997.

Before adverting to the question as to whether the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity the facts in brief leading to filing of this writ petition may be noticed.

The petitioner herein has been placed under suspension by the Superintending Engineer (R & B), Nizamabad vide proceedings dated 6-6-1997. In the said proceedings it is alleged that the petitioner belongs to barber community which falls under BC ''A'' group. It is further alleged that his caste certificate is not available either in the office or in the District Employment Exchange, Nizamabad. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he was appointed on 19-9-1978 as against the reserved vacancy of Scheduled Tribe and posted to R & B Division, Kamareddy. That is all the allegation made against him. There is no allegation of petitioner producing any false caste certificate as such. It is not alleged that the petitioner played any fraud and secured employment. The only allegation is that he was appointed in a reserved vacancy meant for Scheduled Tribe.

Be that as it may, we do not propose to express any further opinion with regard to any of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The fact remains that the petitioner was appointed as early as in 1978 and continued to work as junior assistant until the passing of the impugned proceedings dated 6-6-1997 pursuant to which he was placed under suspension pending enquiry.

The learned Government Pleader informs the Court that the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner is not completed and an enquiry officer has been appointed to make an enquiry into the allegations. Thus, it is clear from the record and the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that for more than 51/2 years the petitioner is kept under suspension without there being any progress in the enquiry. It is not as if the petitioner is responsible for stalling the enquiry initiated against him.

It is true that this Court normally, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not interfere with orders of suspension pending enquiry. But inordinate delay in making enquiry, in our considered opinion, would undoubtedly result in adversely affecting the morale of an employee. In a given case such suspension order itself may amount to punishing the employee without even recording any finding as to the misconduct, if any.

There is no justification on the part of the respondent in not making any enquiry against the petitioner for a period of more than 51/2 years. For the mistake of the respondent the petitioner cannot be allowed to languish in perpetuity without any employment whatsoever. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to interfere in the matter and direct reinstatement of the petitioner into service forthwith. However, this order shall not preclude the respondent herein to make appropriate disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law. The enquiry shall be completed as expeditiously as possible.

The tribunal, in our considered opinion, failed to advert itself to the crucial aspects as to the effect of inordinate delay in making an enquiry against an employee placed under suspension. On account of such omission on the part of the tribunal the impugned order is vitiated as it suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.