Introduction:

In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Mohammad Shanoor Khan v. The State of AP and Others (WRIT PETITION NO: 15505/2023) granted relief to an employee, Mohammad Shanoor Khan, who had been reinstated to service after an initial suspension. Despite his reinstatement, the petitioner faced denial of seniority and promotion benefits due to an alleged pending departmental enquiry that had not been initiated for nearly two years. The Court, in its judgment delivered on 22.04.2025, held that the suspension proceedings and the denial of benefits were unjustified and illegal, as no disciplinary action was ever initiated or contemplated. The Single Judge Bench of Justice Challa Gunaranjan emphasised that the actions taken by the respondents, who had failed to initiate any enquiry, violated the prescribed rules under Rule 8(1) of the relevant service regulations. This case highlights the legal rights of employees who are reinstated after suspension and the obligations of authorities to ensure that disciplinary proceedings are timely conducted, if at all, to avoid unjustified denial of career benefits.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioner’s Arguments (Mohammad Shanoor Khan):

The petitioner, Mohammad Shanoor Khan, argued that although he had been suspended on 16.05.2023 pending a departmental enquiry, he was later reinstated and continued his service without any further disciplinary action being taken. However, despite his reinstatement, the respondents continued to mark his service register, denying him the benefits of seniority and promotion. He contended that this denial was under the pretext of an anticipated departmental enquiry, which had not been initiated even after nearly two years. The petitioner further argued that since no disciplinary action had been initiated against him, the suspension period should have been regularised as per FR 54 (B), and the denial of benefits was illegal. He emphasised that the suspension was used as a tool to withhold his career progression without any legitimate basis for such action. He sought to have the entries in his service record corrected and to have the suspension period treated as on duty.

Respondent’s Arguments (Municipal Commissioner and Regional Director):

The Municipal Commissioner of Narsapuram Municipality, who had initially suspended the petitioner, argued that the suspension was imposed to initiate disciplinary action, but it was the responsibility of the Regional Director cum Appellate Commissioner, Municipal Administration, Rajamahendravaram to conduct the enquiry. The respondent’s stance was that no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated by the Regional Director, and hence, the suspension period continued to be marked in the petitioner’s service records. The respondents argued that the entries in the service register related to the petitioner’s suspension were not an indication of punishment but were reflective of the pending enquiry. They contended that once the disciplinary proceedings were concluded, the service record would be corrected accordingly. The respondents further argued that the petitioner’s claims of being deprived of notional benefits were premature and would be addressed once the enquiry was completed.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Challa Gunaranjan, in his judgment, noted that despite the suspension being imposed in May 2023, no disciplinary action had been initiated by the competent authorities even after nearly two years. The Court observed that the powers of suspension under Rule 8(1) were contingent on the initiation of a formal enquiry, and the respondents had failed to take any further action, thereby rendering the suspension proceeding baseless. The Court pointed out that the very foundation for the suspension – the anticipation of disciplinary proceedings – had not been substantiated, and the delay in initiating any action against the petitioner was unjustified.

The Court ruled that the denial of seniority, promotion, and other career benefits under the guise of an anticipated enquiry was illegal and unjustified. The petitioner’s suspension was effectively rendered invalid due to the absence of any enquiry, and thus, he was entitled to the benefits of seniority and promotion that had been withheld. The Court emphasised that administrative authorities could not prolong such situations indefinitely, as it not only deprived employees of their legitimate career progression but also went against the principles of natural justice.

Further, the Court directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Municipal Commissioner and the Regional Director within two weeks, seeking the necessary corrections in his service record. The respondents were ordered to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks under the law. This order was aimed at ensuring that the petitioner’s career progression was not unjustly delayed due to administrative inaction.