THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17290 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as Junior Officer, in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. He was placed under suspension, vide proceedings dated 4.2.2008, on the ground that he was in judicial custody in Sub-Jail, Proddutur, since 12.11.2007, in connection with Crime No.158 of 2007 of P.S. Duvvur, under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The suspension was directed to be in force, with effect from 12.11.2007. The petitioner made a representation, dated 12.6.2008, stating that his being in judicial custody, was not with reference to any official discharge or functions, and since the case pending before the Criminal Court would take substantial time for disposal, his suspension may be revoked. The representation of the petitioner was rejected, vide order dated 4.7.2008, with an observation, that suspension cannot be revoked during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The petitioner was advised to apply for enhancement of subsistence allowance, on completion of six months from the date of suspension. Petitioner feels aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not a dispute that the petitioner was in judicial custody, in connection with a criminal case registered under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Though he was released at a subsequent point of time, the service regulations of the respondents mandate that in such an event, an employee must be placed under suspension. The question as to whether the suspension of this nature must be continued, till the conclusion of the proceedings before the criminal court, or whether the employer had any discretion to revoke the suspension, would depend upon the purport of the rules governing the matter. The petitioner is not able to place any material before this court, that warrant revocation of suspension, even while the criminal case is pending. It may be true that in case, the charges in the criminal case do not relate to the discharge of duties of an employee, it may not be in the interest of the employer, to continue the employee under prolonged suspension. Much, however, would depend upon the text of the relevant rules, as well as the nature of discretion that has to be exercised by the employer. Normally, the matters of this nature are reviewed, after completion of one year, from the date of order of suspension. By that time, the formalities, such as, filing of charge sheet, or any consequential departmental proceedings, would emerge. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner, to make a representation, after expiry of one year from the date of suspension, duly mentioning the provisions that govern the situation. As and when such representation is made, the 1st respondent shall dispose of the same, on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 8th August 2008 PAN