E.S REDDY V.

THE CHIEF
SECRETARY (1987) 3 SCC 529
NAME- RIYA
BA LLB (CRIMINAL LAW) BATCH
2
SAP ID- 500071374
ROLL NO- 134
ACTS APPLIED IN THE CASE-
◦ CONSITUTION OF INDIA –
ARTICLE 14
ARTICLE 136
FACTS-
◦ An officer who had been suspended in a defalcation case contested the suspension order under Art. 14 of the
Constitution on the grounds that another officer in a similar situation had simply been reassigned. The
injunction was annulled by a Single Judge of the High Court, but his decision was overturned on appeal by the
Division Bench. The case was brought before the Court via a Special Leave Petition.
◦ The State Government suggested in its counter-affidavit that it had begun proceedings to prosecute two more
policemen implicated in the case. When the Special Leave Petition came up for hearing, the Court issued an
interim order directing the counsel to convey to the State Government the Court's concern about the petitioner
being placed under suspension alone and indicating that if the State Government did not pass any order
suspending the other officers, who appeared to be equally culpable based on a review of the investigation report,
it may become necessary to lot the Court.
◦ When the case came up again, the Court had to delay it with another interim order instructing the State
Government to execute required orders suspending all of the culpable officers. In anticipation of the State
Government's response, two other officers engaged in the case filed applications seeking the recall of the two
aforementioned temporary orders.
◦ The Court told counsel for the applicants who had asked for the interim orders to be recalled that the
proper line of action was to file an appeal and/or representation against their suspension with the State
Government. While one of the applicants' counsel accepted that proposal and withdrew the application,
the other applicant's counsel did not. The later applicant had made some reckless charges and cast doubt
on the Court. The counsel representing him gave the impression that he had settled the application
without noting the wrongful averments, but then went on to make arguments with disproportionate
vehemence and unjustified anger.
◦ While dismissing the Special Leave Petition as infructuous and expressing displeasure with the manner
in which arguments were made on behalf of one of the applicants.
JUDGEMENT-
◦ E.S. Reddy, a member of the Indian Administrative Service from the Andhra Pradesh cadre who served
as Vice-Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh Mining Corporation, filed a Special
Leave Petition. It is directed against a judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court dated October
18, 1985, reversing a learned Single Judge's judgement and order dated September 2, 1985, and
dismissing his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner challenged the legality of an
order of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh dated February 11, 1985 suspending him under sub-r.
(1) of r. 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1963.
◦ The petitioner's main complaint before the High Court was that the impugned suspension order was
wholly mala fide, arbitrary, and irrational, and violated Art. 14 of the Constitution because there was no
justification for the differential treatment meted out to him while the applicant, T.V. Choudhary, also a
member of the Indian Administrative Service, who worked in various capacities viz. as General Manager,
Functional Director, Member, Board of Directors, and Vice-Chairman That objection was sustained
before the learned Single Judge, who cancelled it in his judgement of September 2, 1985.
◦ Choudhary, a member of the Indian Administrative Service, who worked in various capacities at the
Corporation, including General Manager, Functional Director, Member of the Board of Directors, and
Vice-Chairman-cure-Managing Director, and was involved in the alleged irregularities, had merely been
transferred from the Corporation and posted as Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Textile
Development Corporation. His complaint was sustained before the learned Single Judge, who quashed
the impugned suspension order in his judgement of September 2, 1985.
◦ The Division Bench, however, has reversed that judgement and rejected the writ petition, ruling that the
findings reached by the learned Single Judge are not supported by the evidence on record.