LexTHE GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS. versus P. CHANDRA MOULI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009] 6 S.C.R. 374 THE GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS. v. P. CHANDRA MOULI & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2009) APRIL 16, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] Service Law - Suspension - A.P. Civil Services C (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1991 - rr.8 and 33 - Suspension of employee pending conclusion of disciplinary , proceedings - Employee filed O.A. before Tribunal which directed him to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, before invoking the jurisdiction of Tribunal - Employee fiied writ D petition against the order of Tribunal - High Court allowed the petition by going into merits of the case and set aside the order of suspension holding the same to be malafide - On appeal, held: It was not a case where alternative remedy could be avoided - The Tribunal had not considered the case on E merits and had only directed the employee to avail statutory remedy, hence, the High Court could not have gone into detailed examination of the alleged malafides of the suspension order - High Court should not have entertained . the writ petition when the Tribunal had disposed of the O.A. F only on ground of availability of alternative remedy - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - ss. 14 and 20- Remedy - Alternative remedy. Based on the report of Dy. Commissioner of Police as forwarded by the Commissioner of Police, the Director G General of Police (DGP) placed respondent no.1 under suspension pending conclusion of disciplinary proceedings under r.8(1 )(a) of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1991. Aggrieved, respondent no.1 filed O.A. before the Tribunal H 374 - GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS. v. P. CHANDRA MOUL! & 375 ANR. which directed him to avail the alternative remedy of A appeal under r.33, before invoking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under s.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. Respondent no.1 filed writ petition against the order of Tribunal. High Court allowed the petition by going into 8 the merits of the case and set aside the order of suspension holding the same to be malafide. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court ought to have noticed that this was not a case where alternative remedy could c be avoided. It was necessary, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, for respondent no.1 to avail alternative remedy. Further the High Court has considered the plea of 0 malafides in writ petition. The Tribunal had not - t considered the case on merits. It had only directed the respondent No.1 to avail statutory remedy. That being so - it was certainly not open to the High Court to go into a detailed examination of the alleged malafides. [Para 8] E [379-C] . 1.2. It is not a case where the High Court should have ·entertained the writ petition when the Tribunal had : disposed of the O.A. only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. [Para 14] [382-A] F Union of India v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 2005 (8) SCC 760; Gu/am Mustafa and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1976 (1) SCC 800; Mid/ey Minerals India Ltd. v. State of Orissa 2004 (12)SCC 39; Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok G Kumar Arora 1997 (3) SCC 72 and La/it Popli v. Canara Bank 2003 (3) sec 583, referred to. Case Law Reference: 2005 (8) sec 760 referred to Para 9 H 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. - A 1976 (1) sec 800 referred to Para 10 .-1, 2004 (12) sec 39 referred to Para 11 1997 (3) sec 12 referred to Para 13 B 2003 (3) sec 583 referred to Para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2009. ;. ......... From the Judgment~ Order dated 24.03.2005 of the High c Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 4247 of 2005. · R. Sundaravardhan and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appellants. l D D. Rama Krishna Reddy, T. Anamika and D. Mahesh I Babu for the Respondents. 1 - The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is by the State of Andhra Pradesh questioning the judgment passed a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1. The proceedings initiated by the ~- F Director General of Police (in short the · DGP') placing respondent No. 1 under suspension pending conclusion of disciplinary proceedings were quashed. Cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed to be paid by the DGP and th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.