HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18627 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in the Andhra Pradesh State HoUsing Corporation Limited, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. The Anti Corruption Bureau (for short ‘ACB’) has submitted a report dated 17-06-2010 alleging that the petitioner possessed assets disproportionate to the known source of income. Taking that into account, the 1st respondent passed order dated 23-06- 2010 placing the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 3. The order of suspension pending enquiry was passed against the petitioner, on the basis of a report submitted by the ACB. The exact stage of further proceedings in pursuance of the report of the ACB is not known. Whenever an employee is placed under suspension on the basis of a trap laid or a report submitted by the ACB, hardly there would be any option left to the employer to review the matter. This aspect was dealt with by the Government in detail. it is observed that after expiry of six months from the date of suspension on the basis of a trap or a report, the case shall be reviewed by the appointing authority concerned, in consultation with the ACB. The reason is that the prolonged suspension of the employee would result in loss to exchequer and denial of service of the employee if the charges against such employee, are not proved. The loss to the Government would be colossal. Much, however depends upon the gravity of the charges. Even if the G.Os. are not directly applicable in this case, the 1st respondent can review the case of the petitioner in the context of revocation of suspension in consultation with the 3rd respondent. 4. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall review the case of the petitioner for revocation or order of suspension pending enquiry, after expiry of six months from the date of the order of suspension in consultation with the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J October 08, 2010. KTL