'Basis For Enquiry Is A Myth': Andhra Pradesh HC Grants Relief To Employee Denied Notional Benefits Over Anticipated Dept Enquiry

In this regard, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Challa Gunaranjan, observed,

“…5th respondent as on today not initiated any disciplinary action even after lapse of almost two years. The same itself would go to show that respondents are not contemplating to initiate any disciplinary proceedings. The powers of suspension provided under Rule 8(1) presuppose that the respondents would initiate enquiry. In the present case the very basis for initiation of such enquiry found to be myth in view of the fact that no such action has been initiated as of now, the very issuance of suspension proceedings is clearly in violation and contrary to the aforesaid provision.”

Background

The High Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by one Mohammad Shanoor Khan, who was working as a Ward Sanitation and Environment Secretary of Narsapuram Municipality, and had been placed under suspension on certain allegations by proceedings dated 16.05.2023, pending enquiry. However, he was later reinstated into service, and continued to discharge his services thereafter.

The petition was, thus, filed on the grounds that despite placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry, without issuing any further disciplinary proceedings, his service register has been red-marked. Accordingly, he was not being extended benefits of seniority and promotion under the guise of a departmental enquiry pending against him. The petitioner further argued that while he had been reinstated into service as no disciplinary proceedings were initiated or pending against him, the period of his suspension had to be regularised as per FR 54-(B).

Contrary to this, the Municipal Commissioner, Narsapuram Municipality (Respondent 4), who had suspended the petitioner on the pretext of conducting disciplinary action, argued that the competent authority to hold enquiry against the petitioner and examine his suspension was the Regional Director cum Appellate Commissioner, Municipal Administration Rajamahendravaram (Respondent 5) and as such, Respondent 4 did not initiate any enquiry against the petitioner. However, even Respondent 5 had also not initiated any disciplinary proceedings. It was argued that the entries in the service register were only with respect to the petitioner being placed under suspension and the same would be corrected once the disciplinary proceedings reached a logical end.

Noting that the very basis for initiation of enquiry was a myth in view of the fact that no further action had been taken, the Court held,

“The claim of petitioner that respondents, under guise of anticipated departmental enquiry, having placed petitioner under suspension, are not extending the notional benefits including that of treating the suspension period as on duty, is completely unjustified and illegal has considerable force.”

Thereafter, the Court ordered,

“…the petitioner is given liberty to make representation to respondents 4 and 5 within a period of two weeks and in case, such representation is received, they are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said representation within a further period of eight weeks strictly in accordance with law.”

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 15505/2023

Case Title: Mohammad Shanoor Khan v. The State Of Ap and Others

Date: 22.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order