IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8139 of 2008 Between: M.V.Patrudu S/o.Buli Patrudu Construction & Operation Divison APEPDCL, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The AP Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director, Visakhapatnam 2 The AP Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited rep.by its Superintending Engineer, Operation Visakhapatnam 3 The AP Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited rep.by its Divisional Engineer, Construction & Operation Division, Paderu Visakhapatnam District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing suspension proceedings dated 31.10.2007 even without serving the proceedings dated 24.10.2007 calling for explanation and further action of the respondents in suspending the petitioner without taking action on the other persons as highly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the service regulations and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to re- instate the petitioner into service with all other attendant benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.M.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8139 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as U.D.C., in the A. P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Paderu in Visakhapatnam District. Alleging that he has committed certain irregularities, in the matter of remitting the amounts, deducted towards income tax, employees’ provident fund, professional tax, etc., the 2nd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri N.M.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the order of suspension was not preceded even by any preliminary inquiry, and it was only on 24-10-2007, that the 3rd respondent called for explanation from the petitioner and J.A.O., Paderu. He contends that the petitioner was not at all the authority, either to draw, or to deposit the cheques, and that the cheques for deduction of income tax etc., and the officials who are entrusted with the duty were totally exonerated. He submits that having placed the petitioner under suspension, the respondents are not taking steps to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry. Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, and when an inquiry into such grave charges is pending, the suspension cannot be said to be illegal. By its very nature, suspension, pending inquiry, need not be preceded by any inquiry, be it, preliminary or otherwise. Once an employer notices that the employee is guilty of any serious lapses, he can certainly suspend the employee, if it subserves the public interest. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, that the order of suspension was not preceded by any inquiry; cannot be countenanced. The circumstances under which the petitioner came to be suspended, are evident from the confidential memo dated 24-10-2007, where six instances of amounts, deducted towards income tax, profession tax, employees’ provident fund from the Contractors, or other individuals; not being remitted to the respective departments, are cited. It is only in the departmental inquiry, that the truth or otherwise of the said allegations can be determined. It cannot be said that there does not exist any basis for placing the petitioner under suspension. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. However, the respondents cannot remain silent, once the petitioner is placed under suspension. It is in the interest of the organization, as well as the petitioner, that the disciplinary proceedings are concluded, at the earliest. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order of suspension, but directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. 17-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}