D.Srinivasa Rao vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, D. Srinivasa Rao, a Joint Commissioner (State GST) under suspension, challenges a memo dated October 23, 2019, continuing his suspension. He was initially arrested on April 30, 2017, in connection with a complaint regarding bogus challans and cheating the government between 2012-2014. Although not initially an accused, he was later included in the FIR. He was placed under suspension on May 24, 2017, due to detention exceeding 48 hours. Charges were framed on January 9, 2018. The petitioner had previously filed writ petitions seeking reinstatement, with earlier court orders directing review of his suspension. The respondents, primarily the State of Telangana and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, contend that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case under investigation, and the loss of revenue occurred during his tenure, justifying continued suspension.

Held

The Court held that the prayer sought by the petitioner could not be granted. However, taking note that the order of suspension was dated May 24, 2017, it was expected that the respondents would act with promptitude in conducting the inquiry. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner expeditiously, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the charges or the evidence, as it would prejudice the ongoing inquiry and trial. The Court referenced Supreme Court judgments, including Ajay Kumar Choudhary, L. Srinivasan, and a Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court, to emphasize that the continuation of suspension should be analyzed on the facts of each case, considering the gravity of charges and applicable rules, and that revocation of suspension is not a matter of course.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order continuing the petitioner's suspension, dated October 23, 2019, is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, and violative of Articles 12, 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contends the impugned order is unreasoned, bad in law, unconstitutional, and passed without application of mind, as it refers to a review meeting that did not occur. He also argues that he was not an accused when the FIR was registered and no independent inquiry was conducted. The petitioner further asserts that the order and counter-affidavit are silent on the evidence supporting a prima facie case against him. The respondents argue that the petitioner is involved in a criminal case involving significant revenue loss during his tenure, and the government has the power to review and extend suspension periods, citing G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 04.01.2006, which allows for 50% subsistence allowance in cases of corruption until disciplinary proceedings are finalized.