Senior IPS officer and former intelligence chief of Andhra Pradesh during the previous Telugu Desam Party regime A B Venkateshwara Rao may have to retire without doing his job even for a single day in the last five years.
ABV, who is going to retire from his service on May 31 on attaining the age of superannuation, made a desperate attempt to return to his service at least in the fag end of his career by moving the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging his suspension by the Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy government.
Exactly three weeks before his retirement, the CAT gave an order in his favour, striking down his suspension and ordering the state government to take him back into service, besides restoring all his pay and allowances.
But, Jagan did not want to see ABV working under his government. So, his government moved the high court challenging the CAT order. The high court accepted the petition for hearing in a couple of days.
If the high court refuses to suspend the CAT orders immediately, ABV might have to be taken back into service. But if the hearing continues, he might have to retire without getting back into service.
ABV’s suspension stemmed from allegations of irregularities in the purchase of surveillance equipment, leading to the registration of a case against him by the Andhra Pradesh ACB.
Despite previous legal disputes, including a ruling against him in the CAT, a recent decision by the Telangana High Court nullified CAT’s order, prompting the AP government to challenge it in the Supreme Court.
After an extended legal tussle spanning over two years, the Supreme Court dismissed the government’s petition, citing that a member of services (MoS) cannot remain under suspension for more than two years.
Consequently, ABV’s suspension was revoked, and he was reinstated by the government. However, this reinstatement was short-lived as he was once again suspended on similar grounds, citing pending criminal proceedings against him.
ABV challenged this subsequent suspension before the CAT. Arguing on his behalf, senior counsel contended that the state government’s decision to suspend him again for the same reasons, despite the apex court’s directives, is illegal, arbitrary, and infringes upon ABV’s fundamental rights.