Kocharlakota Sandya vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court allowed all four writ petitions. It held that the respondents failed to follow the due process of law before issuing the impugned suspension orders. Specifically, the Court found that no show cause notice or charge memo was issued to the petitioners, and they were not given an opportunity to participate in the inquiries. The inquiries were conducted based on newspaper reports and without complying with Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, 1991. The Court also noted that the petitioners were not associated with the tax collection wing or intelligence unit against which the news reports were published. The Court concluded that the suspension orders were issued without application of mind and without factual basis concerning each petitioner, attracting the principle of malice in law. The Court set aside the suspension proceedings, finding them to be punitive rather than a measure to facilitate an inquiry, as the inquiries were already completed. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

Four writ petitions were filed challenging the suspension proceedings issued against the petitioners, who are employees of the Commercial Tax Department. The petitioners, including G.R. Vara Prasad (Goods and Services Tax Officer), Ch. Durga Prasad (Senior Assistant), B. Mehar Kumar (Goods and Services Tax Officer), and K. Sandhya (Goods and Services Tax Officer), were suspended on January 23, 2023. The suspension orders were based on allegations of suppressing information related to suppliers, delayed action on intelligence reports, and incomplete recovery of dues. The petitioners contended that their suspension was a retaliatory measure for their association's representation to the Governor regarding salary payments and that the suspension proceedings were issued without following due process, including the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The respondents argued that the suspension was a necessary administrative measure following a preliminary inquiry, to prevent further misconduct and ensure an objective inquiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the suspension proceedings issued against the petitioners are arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, specifically the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, as the petitioners were not issued a show cause notice or charge memo, nor were they given an opportunity to participate in the inquiries? (Question of law and fact, turning on Rule 8 and Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, 1991). Petitioner's contentions: The suspension proceedings are punitive in nature and were issued as a retaliatory measure for the petitioners' association's representation to the Governor regarding salary payments. The inquiries relied upon were conducted behind the petitioners' backs, based on newspaper reports, and without proper authorization or relevance to the petitioners' roles. No show cause notice or charge memo was issued. Revenue/State's contentions: The suspension was a necessary administrative measure taken after a discreet preliminary inquiry and a final inquiry, which revealed prima facie material affecting state revenue. No prior notice is required under Rule 8(1) of the CCA Rules, 1991. The suspension is not a punishment and is intended to facilitate an objective inquiry. The suspension is unrelated to the petitioners' association activities.