HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.32618 of 2010 Date: December 28, 2010 Between: K. Nirmala Gnanamani … Petitioner And 1. The District Educational Officer, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.32618 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned Government Pleader for School Education. 2. The third respondent school management has placed the writ petitioner under suspension pending inquiry through an order dated 21.12.2010. The case of the writ petitioner is that this order has not been passed by the management upon independent application of their mind and satisfying themselves that the facts and circumstances of the case require any such action to be taken against her. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri S.V. Ramana, the management has resorted to such an extreme step of placing the Headmistress of the school under suspension only because the District Educational Officer, Krishna District through his communication dated 09.12.2010 directed the management of the school to place the writ petitioner under suspension and thus the management, buckling under the pressure of District Educational Officer merely complied with the directive of the D.E.O. and placed the writ petitioner under suspension without any independent application of mind, by themselves. 3. Section 79 which dealt with the issues relating to removal or reduction in rank of the employees of private educational institutions has set out that an employee of a private educational institution can be placed under suspension pending enquiry contemplated into gross irregularities committed by any such employee. However, with a view to ensure that no employee of private educational institution would be harassed by placing him under suspension for longer periods, a very tight time frame limit of two months has been prescribed for completion of the enquiry. 4. At this stage, it would be difficult to subscribe to the view that only because of the pressure of the District Educational Officer the management has placed the writ petitioner under suspension. When adverse material and facts are brought to the notice of the District Educational Officer, particularly when it is alleged that the writ petitioner is responsible, prima facie for certain irregularities relating to the operation of the mid-day meals scheme in the school, the D.E.O. is perhaps legitimately entitled to direct the management to place the petitioner under suspension and hence the management may have passed the impugned order on 21.12.2010. 5. Suspension pending enquiry per se may not amount to imposition of any punishment on an employee. It is a step in aid to collect the appropriate material against an employee. It will help unhindered flow of material against the employee concerned. It will also facilitate collection of necessary material and persons who might be interested in making available material will not come under any pressure not to do so, so long as the employee is kept under suspension. I therefore do not consider it appropriate to suspend the operation of the impugned order. 6. But however, the writ petitioner being the Headmistress of the institution every care has got to be taken to ensure that an otherwise decent record of service earned by her is no way impaired unjustifiably. It is therefore appropriate to direct the third respondent management to forthwith proceed without any further delay to conduct an enquiry against the writ petitioner duly providing a fair and reasonable opportunity for her to defend against the action proposed. It is made clear that the third respondent shall complete the enquiry, preferably, within a period of two months. If the third respondent is not able to complete the inquiry within two months period, the said fact shall be reported promptly to the District Educational Officer, Krishna at Machilipatnam indicating the possible time frame limit within which the inquiry can be completed so that the D.E.O can apply his mind as to whether the period of suspension should be further extended by a two month period or it would sub-serve the interests if the writ petitioner is reinstated back to service. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: December 28, 2010. BSB