THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17612 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is employed as a Clerk, in the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Kokkirapally, Yelamanchili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, the 3rd respondent herein. Through order, dated 1.8.2008, the President of the Society, the 4th respondent herein, placed the petitioner under suspension. It was alleged that in the audit report, certain irregularities were pointed out, on the part of the petitioner, and it is proposed to conduct departmental enquiry. The 4th respondent directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to be paid subsistence allowance, as per the bye-laws. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order of suspension does not fit into Section 59 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (for short “the Act”), or into any other provision of law. He contends that the 4th respondent, who is inimically disposed against the petitioner, had passed the impugned order, with a malafide intention. Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned counsel for respondent 3 and 4, submits that the suspension is only pending enquiry, and it does not warrant interference. He contends that certain allegations were made against the petitioner, in the audit report. Admittedly, the impugned order of suspension is not traceable to Section 59 of the Act. An occasion, to place an employee under suspension, in pursuance of an order issued under Section 59 of the Act, would arise, only when statutory audit, inspection or enquiry are conducted, under the relevant provisions of law, and any paid employee is named therein, and the Registrar directs the management to suspend such employee. The 4th respondent placed the petitioner under suspension, purely in his capacity as the employer. It is no doubt true that reference is made to an audit report, which, in turn, pointed out certain defects in the audits of previous years. However, it cannot be said that an audit, referable to any provisions of law, must exist as a condition precedent for the employer of the society, to place its employees under suspension. Mere information about any misconduct, not supported by any document, would also be sufficient, to enable the management to suspend an employee. The truth or otherwise of the allegations, against the employees, are required to be proved in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner does not allege that the 4th respondent is not conferred with the power to place him under suspension. Further, in view of the facts mentioned in the impugned order, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no basis, for placing the petitioner under suspension. This court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the 4th respondent is directed to conclude the proceedings, within a period of three months. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order of suspension, but directing the 4th respondent to conclude the enquiry, within three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 19th August 2008 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) PAN