Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a Manager in the respondent Company, was placed under suspension through Ext.P1 proceedings dated 15.07.2014 pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, after having been placed under suspension, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation styled as an appeal to the Managing Director of the respondent Company, the disciplinary authority, assailing the correctness of Ext.P1 in placing the petitioner under suspension. Complaining of its non disposal, the petitioner approached this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made earnest efforts to impress upon this Court that Ext.P1 order of suspension is unsustainable, in support of which she has made elaborate submissions referring to various provisions in Ext.P2 standing orders. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P1 was passed on 15.07.2014, but, to this day, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. According to her, there is inordinate delay on the part of the disciplinary authority. She has further submitted that Ext.P3, though not a statutory appeal, is an explanation submitted by the petitioner in the light of the allegations made in Ext.P1 and that the disciplinary authority ought to have considered it and passed appropriate orders thereon expeditiously.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Company has drawn the attention of this Court to clause 36 of the Standing orders and submitted that an employee can be placed under suspension even in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. According to her, even a prima facie appreciation of Ext.P1 would reveal that the charges are very grave in nature. She has further submitted that since Ext.P1 order of suspension was issued only in July, 2014, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay. Finally, she has contended that Ext.P3 is an extra statutory application submitted by the petitioner and accordingly, the disciplinary authority is not obligated to pass any orders thereon, inasmuch as it does not amount to any quasi judicial exercise of the disciplinary powers by the disciplinary authority.
5. Be that as it may, there is no gainsaying the fact that placing an employee under suspension is a necessary concomitant to the expansive disciplinary powers required to be exercised against any erring employee. In that context, I do not see any illegality in Ext.P3. There is some force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that Ext.P3 is neither a statutory appeal nor a statutory revision. Having said that, it is to be further appreciated that in the light of the order of suspension in Ext.P1, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 which is in the nature of representation, though styled as appeal, putting forward the preliminary defence of the petitioner why he should not be placed under suspension. At this juncture, any reference to the merits of the matter by this Court would adversely affect the disciplinary proceedings. This Court, therefore, restrains from making any observations.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, this Court disposes of the writ petition that the disciplinary authority may consider Ext.P3 representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv