D Srinivasa Rao vs. The State Of Telangana And Another

Facts

The appellant, D. Srinivasa Rao, a Joint Commissioner of State GST, was placed under suspension on May 24, 2017, due to his alleged involvement in a criminal case (Crime No. 52 of 2017) for offenses under Sections 406, 409, 420, 168, and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge memo was issued on January 9, 2018, alleging failure to supervise his division as Deputy Commissioner, Nizamabad, leading to a loss of Rs. 92.43 Crores. Despite the disciplinary proceedings not progressing, the appellant remained under suspension for over two years. A previous writ petition led to a direction to review the suspension order. Subsequently, the appellant was transferred from Hyderabad to Karimnagar on August 1, 2018, while still under suspension. A further review on October 23, 2019, continued his suspension, leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition No. 25480 of 2019. The impugned order dated November 14, 2022, directed the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings within three weeks.

Held

The Court held that the respondents shall review the suspension order of the appellant strictly in accordance with the Rules. This review must also take into account the fact that the appellant was transferred from Hyderabad to Karimnagar during the suspension period, vide proceedings dated August 1, 2018. The Court directed that appropriate orders be passed within a reasonable period, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court also reiterated that the respondents shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant as expeditiously as possible. The Court did not explicitly decide on the arbitrariness of the initial suspension or the quantum of loss, but focused on the review of the suspension order in light of the transfer and duration.

Key Issues

1. Whether the continued suspension of the appellant for over six years, especially after his transfer during the suspension period, is an arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents, violating principles of natural justice and established precedents like Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India? Petitioner's arguments: The appellant contended that continuing him under suspension for an extended period of over six years is arbitrary. He argued that the transfer during suspension indicated no necessity for continued suspension, as the primary grounds for suspension (tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, public interest) were not met. He sought a review of the suspension order considering the transfer and the prolonged duration. Respondents' arguments: The respondents stated that an Enquiry Officer had been appointed and that the disciplinary proceedings would be concluded within a reasonable time.