HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.11152 of 2011 ORDER: Heard both sides. The writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in suspending the petitioner without any notice as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Attender in the third respondent- Devasthanam and was promoted to the post of Record Assistant in the year 1990. Thereafter, he was promoted as Junior Assistant on 15.05.2004, and since then he has been working without any remarks to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. While so, the impugned order was passed suspending the petitioner pending enquiry, without issuing any notice to him. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the allegations in the impugned order are baseless and that, he has not committed any irregularity or illegality. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the requirements, the petitioner purchased the uniform and deposited the remaining amount with the Devasthanam and therefore, the allegations in the interim suspension order are baseless and prays to set aside the impugned order. Suspension pending disciplinary proceedings need not to be upon notice to the person concerned because he will get his chance in the disciplinary proceedings. Normally, the courts will not interfere with orders of suspension pending enquiry unless grounds like mala fides are made out. There must be some material alleged misconduct and prima facie case for placing an employee under suspension. It is a temporary deprivation of one’s office or position. It is settled law that normally when an appointing authority or disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending enquiries or contemplated into grave charges of misconduct, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct sought to be enquired into and nature of materials placed before the appropriate authority and on application of mind by disciplinary authority. The authority concerned shall decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending enquiry. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he utilized the money for the purpose other than the one for which it was sanctioned and has not credited the remaining amount to the account of the third respondent-Devasthanam. Whether those allegations are correct or not has to be decided during enquiry by the enquiry officer. The petitioner is at liberty to give an explanation in respect of the allegations levelled against him in respect of charge memo. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20th April 2011 dr