The State Of Telangana vs. D.Srinivas Rao

Facts

The State of Telangana, represented by its Revenue Department and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, filed a writ appeal challenging an order dated August 18, 2021, passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25480 of 2019. The writ petition was filed by D. Srinivas Rao, a Joint Commissioner of State GST under suspension, seeking to declare the continuation of his suspension as illegal and arbitrary. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition, ordering the petitioner's reinstatement due to prolonged suspension exceeding two years, without considering a counter-affidavit from the State. The State's appeal argued that the employee was involved in a significant scam and sought an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit.

Held

The High Court held that the counter-affidavit from the State Government was indeed necessary in the writ petition. It observed that due to the prolonged absence of a counter-affidavit, the learned Single Judge was compelled to decide the matter without it. The Court expressed its displeasure with the State Government's consistent delay in filing counter-affidavits, which often leads to decisions made in their absence. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge. The State was granted six weeks to file its counter-affidavit. Failure to do so would result in the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department, being required to appear before the learned Single Judge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition and ordering the reinstatement of the petitioner without considering the counter-affidavit of the State, particularly when the petitioner was allegedly involved in a large-scale scam? The State argued that the petitioner was involved in the Bodhan Circle challan scam, involving approximately Rs. 100 crores, and that the investigation was ongoing by the CID. They contended that the matter should be remanded back to the learned Single Judge to allow them to file a counter-affidavit, after which the Single Judge could pass an appropriate order. The petitioner, through his writ petition, argued that the continuation of his suspension was illegal and arbitrary, and the learned Single Judge found that prolonged suspension without proper reasons amounted to termination from service.