Narla Venu v. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.SIVARAOHAKRISHNA VENKATESWARA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: cP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.18741 ot 2o25 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking the foliowing relief '...to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: a) by declaring the entire action of the respondents, more particularly the entire action of the 6d, Respondent placing the petitioner under suspension vide impugned proceedings rn R.C.No.E4/Spl/2025 dated 27 06 2025 rs iuthout jurisdictron arld to rvhich he has no authority under statutory n]lcs and certain alleged allegations made in para I of the orders of suspension that thc petitioner lvas not physically present in tlte OP Dispensary, he was not supervising his subordrnates, that he could not ensure the presencc of Data Entry Operator to make e Aushadi Portal entries for distributron of medicines to paticnts in the evening OP and that he ',vas not aware how to open the e- Aushadi portal, which are all other than allotted duties vide Hospital Order Rc, No.296l Peshi /2024 dated O|-O8-2O24. lor which the petitioner has no connection to such duties, and therefore, same is illegal, total non application of mind, unwarranted, arbitrary, colourable exercise o[ power, contrary to various judicial pronouncements in the subject matter, apart from discriminatory on the ground of selective suspension, and set aside or quash the sarne. b) Consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith release aII consequential benefits and to pass..." 2- Heard Sri G. Sivaradha Krishna Venkateswara Sarma, Iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 't- \ ---- 2 PK, J W.P.No.i8741of2O2o

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits rlLat the pctitioner was initially appointed as a Pharmacist Grade-II on 29.O6.1990, and was subscquentl_v, promoted as Pharmacist Grade I on 15.03.2024, and was postcd at respondent No.6 Hospital. Thereafter, the nomenclature ol the post of Pharmacist Grade-I rvlrs arnended as 'Senior Pharmarcl, Officer', while Pharmacist Grad,i- as Uunior Pharmacy Officer', vidc G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 25.O4 2J25. Hou,cvcr, while rvorking as Scnior Pharmacy Ofhcer, the petiticncr was placed under suspcnsion vide impugned proceedings dttcd 27.06.2025 issrLed by respondent No.6, alleging that he had failerl [o discharge his duties and re spon sibilities diligently, during the visit of the Medical College Monitoring Committee to respondent No.6 I{cr;pital. Further, consequcnt upon his promotion, the petitioner was allctted the duties to run thc Pharmacy Department vide order dated 0 i.O8.2O24, and thus, he is no rv:ry connected with the O.P. Dispensary duties, which are a part oI the allegations leveled against the pr:titioner. It is contended that rhe competent authority to initiate :Lny disciplinary proccedings against lhe petitioner, including that ol'i-ris suspension, is respondcnt No.3 herein, whereas, the prr:sent impugned suspension order u,as issued by respondent No.fr, on the oral instructions ol rcspondent No.2, which constitl t(ls a colorable 3 PK, .] W.P.No l8741of 2025 exercise of power, total non-application of mind, illegality, and lack of j urisdiction, apart from being discriminatory.

4. lt is further submitted that as per the Hospital Order dated O1.O8.2024, the O.P. Dispensary duties were assigned to some other Pharmacist Grade II, while the petitioner was only enlrusted with the duties of Main Medical Stores. As such, the allegations do not pertain ro the petitloner's duties and respon sibilities, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the shortcomings noticed during the visit of the Medical College Monitoring Committee, at the O. P. Dispcnsary. Hence, the respondents ought to have terken necessary action against the staff allottcd to the O.P. Dispensary, instead of the petitioner herein. Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside thc impugned suspension order dated 27.06.2025, and consequently, to direct the respondents to forthrvith reinstate the petitioner into service. Relialce has been placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State o;f Orissc u. Bitnrrl Kuntar Mohanthgl and AIR 1979 SC 1022, and a '.ltR r 99.+ (SC) 2296 .\ - *.*] - 4 PR, J \t/.P. Nc 18741oJ2025 decision of this Court in G. Govind. u. State )?<ta.d. Transport Corpo ratio n, H gd.e rabad2

5. Per contra, Iearned Govcrnment Pleader appcalng on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner, being zr S:nior pharmacy Officer, shall coordinate u,ith the subordinate staf1, viz. , pharmacy Officers, Data Entry Operators and other supportingl staff, working under his control, so as to ensure smooth operatior ,tf duties in the pharmacy wing. Further, the petttioner is requrr:r1 to fo1low the Committce membcrs during inspection ald explain everything regarding lhe avarilabilitv of medicines, surgical ctnsumables, lab reagents and rnedrcal eqllipment in the hospital, anc he is also duty- bound to be lull.t, au,are of thc stock position in th<: main medical stores, sub storcs and OP dispensary of the hospit..l. However, the pctitioner was not physically present at the timc of inspection of respondent No.6 Hospital by thc Medical Coltege Monitoring Committec. Further, .,rrhen thc Committee instructed thc petitioner to open the designzrted e Aushadhi portal, to verify the details of the patients and the dislributed drugs, he was unable to i o so. It is also submltted thal at the Lime of inspection, all the sta f members u,ere present. cxcept the Data Entry Operator, and the pet tjoner, being the 2 20t7 Ar,D 755 - 5 PK, J W.P No. )B7a I of 2o2s Senior Pharmacy Officer, failed to ensure the presence of the said individual. Further, the petitioner also failed to supervise the disbursement o[ mcdicines by Junior pharmacists, which amounts to gross misconduct or dereliction of his duties. As such, in thc presence of other Committee members, respondent No.2 instructed that the petitioner be placed under suspension. Accordingly, respondcnt No.6 issued impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2025, placing the pctitioner under suspension, which was duly ratified by respondcnr No.3 vide proceedings dated 04.O7 .2025. Thus, there is no colorable exercise of power by respondent No.6, as alleged by the petitioncr, and thc szrid su spension, bcing an administrative measu re, is rvarranted ior the lapses noticed during the inspection and to facilitate a transparent enquiry into the matter. Therefore, it is pral'ed to dismiss the prescnt writ petition.

6. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions advanced bv lcarncd counscl for the respective parties. 7 A perusal of thc material on rccord discloses that the petitioner lvas promoted as pharmacist Grade_l Rc.No.2201ltr4.-il-E/2022 dared 15.03.2024 Thereafter, vide Hospital Order in Rc.No.296/pc shil2024 dated O i.O8.2O24. he was vide proceedings \-k*l 6 PK,,] 1/ P t,to.1 87q I of 2O2S allotted the <luties as in_charge of the pharmac., respondent No.6 Hospital. While so, respondertr llo.6 passed by prescnt impugnr:d order dated 27.06.2025, plar:ir g rh,t petitioner under suspcnsron. alleging as follor,vs: Department in 'Dunng the visit of the l\,lcclrcal Collcgc IUonitoring C )mmrLtee to NIGN{ Itospirat. warangat on 27 .06_20,):) an(, on lllcN'rCl Inspection at the OP pharnrac,r. Srr N. Venu, Sc,r,o. t,harr,rac1, Officcr l. He rvas not phvsicalll, prcsent in tf.,. Op O,r,,"r.""^, , IIe rr,rs nor lir.pen15111q lris sul,or,l,:atcs. ,. ,"", [he prescnc€ of Data llntn, ( entries [or rirsrribrrrior.r,r,nr",,,'^f-:t:t:t 4. He 1\,as also not ar\,arc nor., ,t"'"t to make e'Arrsl a'li I)o:tal to Pattettts in thc r t 11i1g 11p, ",i.' . l;r:rl o opcn the c-Aushadi ;tor t;rl -

8. Bcfore adr.erting an_v [u rthcr. it rs pertinen I .lot(, that the Hon'ble Apcx Cor: rt, rn Bimala Kumar Mohantq (strpra), has categoricall,r. held r Itat an orcler o[ suspcnsion shall n rt be ltassed as an administrativc rou tinc ancl that the gravity of :Lllcgations to be enquired into musr be taken ir.rto corrsidcration. .lhc I (. cvant portion of the said decisron is extracted l.rcrcrtnder: ' s.., pr ;i,a.l n:t,,;,:,'fl "12. It is thus scrtled la\\, au rh or i t,v o.,re a i"'"":'1","t:,'l ll:T,,1: penrling rnqrrrn ^r contcmplatcd inquiry oi pcndrng Tll:l "" rnvestigation rrto gravc charges oI misconr]uct i.f",, 1r,,"" ., funds or scrio-rs acts of omissron arrd commrssron, thr, or (ler of suspension *orrrd bc passed aftcr taking into .r.",0",,,,,r" ,n" gravit_v of thc rnisco nd uct ",,,r ;;;-,,;,;;;.T:;:' i,,vestisared ",l:",:"" ;l"tT..r" li",:,,:: ]PPfinting allthoritl, and on a,plication of the rr ir..i l)\, ol::'n'i"l ' r'llonrv. AppourrnF aurhoritr or dis, rr tinar.. aurhorirr sl o rl,l r onsrclor rhc aborn,,*n".r. un,, d;:ld;;.,.,i 'i;;,. ". t, i,!; - ,. f.-v^i ) i];- --1 7 PK, J W.P.No.18741 of 2O2s -"- L, a . n. ; ;; rs expcdieut to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesard action. It rvould not be as ," "r*-"",t"^,'#'io,ltlrl. o. an automatic order to suspend an employee. ft U" o. consideratron of the gravity of the alleged "fro.rfa ^r".r"rrlJ ". ,n" nature of the allegations impured to ,t. oJri.qu".,t .-Jii"". ,n" Court or thc Tribunal must consrcler each case on its own facts "* ard no general law could be lai6 ri^,,. ,- ,r:, ;.-,:': isnotapunishm;";;;,;"iif .t;J;,; jJ;:,?,?3...i,:TH,:; empto-yee to discharge the duties of office or oo"in.rJ iii,. ,, other words it is ro refrain him to avail ,i*'"oi#rrn, a perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove tt i_-J..a"ron among the membcrs of servi< "; ;; ";;il::'.:'#'::: i;:i:Y. X.;,:ff; 1,,, 1 rrrqurn. ,.,,.rrhour dn\ irnpediment r)r lo prevent an opportunitJ to the delinquent officer to scut ,n. inqurry or investigation or to lvin over thc witnesses or,,. ::T..'"n, rn office to ,Tj ol"ji.l:::Tlr:1',"::,,rj,"':: '-0"0" rnqulry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must U.."-"lrO...O depending on ttre nature of the allegations, *.u"l,v "irn.liir",." and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service O.rrrr* ,rqrr* or. contemplated inquiry or investigation. tt wouta U"-a.,oti.". thing it the actron is actuat t1'1 fides' arbitrarlr or for ulre'or purpose. rn. # jl: ,, u", sh,ould keep in mincl public rnterest of the impact of the delinquent s coutinuance in whrle facing departmental inquiry or trial of a c.i,rrirrri ch#e n',, ;:,:;: ffi:ffi TJ :jrff ;i": jX,fl.* "r.o".11-o' "i. -," "', 9' Likewise, in G. Gouind.u (supra), this court cured out certain guiding principles governing suspension. The following is an excerpt of the said principles: .^_The princrples that can be culled out from above precedent rstons are: (i) The real effect of the ord continues to be a -.-0.. permrtted to rvork and fu.,h..ot is paid subsisten;;;;;,,::l ll ll "l"ot""io" is that employee service of employer but is not durins the period of suspension he !rI- 8 PK, J Vt.P.No.1B741 of 2025 (ii) f t would not be as an administrative routine or an E utomatic ordcr to suspend an employee and not to be lightl! fassed. It should be or.r consrderation of the gravitv of tr( alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations impu e I to the delinquent employee. (iii) The suspension must be a stcp in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. (iv) The power o[ suspension should arbitrary manner and without any vindictive ard in misuse of porvcr. not be exerc sod i1r reasonable g rc,und, AS (v) Suspension should be macle onll when therc is a srrcng prima facie case of dehnquency. (vi) Suspension is a device to keep mischief range. The purpose is lo unhindered. the delinquenl out oi the complete the lrrocecdings (vii) order of suspension can be rcsortcd to pcnd nl further investigatron or contemplated disciplinan action onl' on grave charges. (viii) Competent Authority should takc into consideratrJrr relevant facts and attendant circumstances as to how far a d to rvhat extent public interest would suffer if the delrnqucnt is not placed under suspension."

10. From the above, it is clear that an order of sl spension cannot be passed as an administrative routine , rather. the disciplinary authority must assess the gravity of alleged misconc uct alld whether the employee's continued presence at the u,orkplace i\rou1d hinder the enquiry processr and only then, take a decision h.creon. In the inslant case, the hrst allegation against the petitionr:r pertains to his absence at the OP Dispensary during the inspectio.r by the Medical 9 PK, J w.P.No.18741o12025 College Monitoring Committee. However, a perusal of the Hospital Order dated Ol .Oa .2024, clearly discloses that the Op Dispensary duties were allotted to other staft, i.e., pharmacists Grade-il, whereas, lhe petitioner was entrusted rr"'ith the duties of in-charge of pharmacy Department. As such, the mcrc non-avarlabitity of the pelitioner at the OP Dispensary during thc inspection cannot be construed as dereliction of duty. As rcgards the other allegations relating to supervision of subordinate staff and operalion of the e-Aushadi portal, although an enquiry is essential to elicit the veracity or otherwise of the petitioner's conduct, the said allegations are not so grave, warranting suspension. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the continuarce of lhe petitioner in service would, in any way, prejudice the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, in the considered oprnion of this CourL, the impugned suspension is wholly unwarranted

11. Further, the impugned suspension order dated 27.06.2025, was passed by respondent No.6, solely on the oral instructions of respondent No.2, without an_r, independent application of mind. Further, it is to be noted that respondent No.6 lacks any authority or jurisdiction to pass such an order of suspension. Although the sard suspension order was subsequently ratifred by the competent i I I I .- '( . --:{Fl \ 10 PK, J lt.P.No.)8741 of 2025 authority vide proceedings dated 04.O7 .2025, such ra -illcation cannot cure a suspension order at al1 times. Thereforc, sier:c the original suspension order is in itself wholly unwarranlcd, the subsequent ratiflcation also stands invalid.

12. ln view of the above, the impugned suspension order dated 27 .06.2025 is liable to be set aside. 1 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allorvcd st tt ing aside the impugned suspension order vidc Rc.No.E4/S:l/2025 dated 27.06.2025 passed by respondent No.6, and thc -espondents are directed to forthrvith reinstate the petitioner into serric:c. f{orvever, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude thc a.lthorilies from proceeding with an enquiry against the petitioner' i thel' so desirc, strictly in accordance with 1aw. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in th is u'rit petition, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRARG SECTION OFFICER To, The Princioal Secretary, Public Health, Medical and Farrily Welfare Oepartment. Secretari6t, Telangana State, Hyderabad The commissioner of Public Health, Medical and Fam ly welfare Department, Sultan Bazar, Kothi, HYderabad. The Director of Public Health, trrledical and Family wel are Department, sultan Bazar, Koti, HYderabad The Director of Medical Education, Sultan Bazar, Koth Hyderabad The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal District, Telanqana State' 1 2 3 4 5 o. I he Medical Superintendent, M. G. lV. Hospital, Warangal ' 8ffi ::J:r3Rl G s I vARADHAKRTs H NA vENKATESWARA sARrvA, 8. TworCCs to Gp FOR SERVICES I, High Court forthe State of Tetangana 9. Two CD Copies. BSK,t4L, I \ J HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 \ \ [ ,t Di:C nffi :\ ,'l ;r /.i ,4/t i.: \i -i I I ORDER WP.No.18741 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS