THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.12197 of 2010 Date: 01-6-2010 Between D.Keshav Reddy … Petitioner and The District Collector (NREGS), Anantapur district, Anantapur and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.12197 of 2010 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and Sri Ch.Vedavani, learned Standing Counsel for MPP and ZPP (Rayalaseema). 2. The petitioner, who is appointed as Field Assistant in National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, has filed this writ petition questioning the proceedings dated 11-5-2010 issued in Rc.No.08/Suspension/NREGS/Nallacheru by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nallacheru Mandal, Anantapur district. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner is placed under suspension while referring to certain serious allegations against the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when certain complaints were made against the petitioner by third parties, he has also filed explanation, but without reference to the said explanation, the impugned order is passed. 4. From a perusal of the impugned proceedings, serious allegations are made with regard to the alleged misappropriation of Rs.6,64,925/- apart from the negligence attributed to the petitioner in discharge of his functions as a Field Assistant. The impugned order is only a suspension order. In view of the allegations made, it is a matter for enquiry by the competent authority. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be gone into by this court at this stage. Merely because the explanation preferred by the petitioner is not referred to, that by itself will not invalidate the impugned order, which is only the suspension order pending enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to interfere with the order of suspension. 6. However, having regard to the allegations made, as much as it is stated that the petitioner has also filed earlier explanation, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 01st June, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.12197 of 2010 01st June, 2010.