THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.13360 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings, dated 06-08-2010 of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.A2/778/2010 as illegal and ultravires to the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 issued in G.O.Ms.No.830 Revenue (Endowment-I) Dept., dated 18-08-1989 and consequently set aside the same. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Attender in 3rd respondent temple on 20-04-1976 and thereafter promoted as Record Assistant and working as such for the last 20 years. Due to ill-health, on the advice of the doctors, he took bed rest for a long period and after completion of leave, he joined duty and posted at Sales Counter of Casettes, Photos, C.Ds. and Calendars in the premises of temple. The 3rd respondent issued proceedings, dated 06-08-2010 framing charges basing on the letter of the Temple Superintendent and Temple Inspector stating that he consumed liquor in the publication counter and also kept the bottles in the almirah and a case in Cr.No.105 of 2010, under Section 296 IPC of Mahanandi Police Station was registered. He submitted his explanation and after receipt of his explanation, 3rd respondent sought for information in respect of his case and accordingly, the Station House Office, Mahanandi P.S. furnished the details of the case. Thereafter, 3rd respondent issued letter, dated 18-10-2010 calling for detailed charge wise written explanation and accordingly, he submitted his detailed charge wise explanation on 24-10-2010, but they did not consider his explanation and as of now he is under suspension since about nine months. The authorities neither concluded enquiry nor reinstated him into service and dragging on the matter for all these months. He is going to be retired in the month of October, 2011. His suspension order has to be revoked since it was passed on 06-08- 2010 as the same is beyond 6 months under Rule 6 (1) of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 issued in G.O.Ms.No.830 Revenue (Endowment-I) Dept., dated 18-08-1989. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even though the petitioner was placed under suspension for the alleged mis-conduct of consuming liquor while he was discharging his duties in the temple, there was no progress in the enquiry and the suspension order has not been reviewed after six months and hence, he prays to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 contended that the proposals for extension of suspension were forwarded by the 3rd respondent and they are pending with the 1st respondent. 5. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent contended that since suspension order has to be reviewed after six months, necessary proposals for extension of suspension order have been forwarded to the respondents 1 and 2, but no action has been taken. 6. It is not in dispute that the employee is going to be retired at the end of October, 2011. If the petitioner has committed any mis-conduct, it is always open to the respondents to frame charges, conduct enquiries and take appropriate decision by disciplinary authority. Keeping an employee under suspension without any progress in departmental enquiry and without extending the suspension order cannot be permitted to continue. For every six months as per the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner, the suspension order has to be reviewed. Such a review has not been undertaken by the competent authority. 7. Therefore, the suspension order passed against the petitioner is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to re- instate the petitioner into service forthwith. However, this order will not preclude the 3rd respondent in proceeding to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law and taking appropriate decision by the disciplinary authority. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 08-07-2011 Hsd