IN T HE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT URE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, T HE FIFT EENT H DAY OF OCT OBER T WO T HOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT T HE HON'BLE MR JUST ICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PET IT ION NO : 21179 of 2008 Between: P.Kaladhar Rao S/o. (Late) P.Kamala Manohar Rao (Under orders of Suspension) A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order more in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected impugned Proceedings No. P.Admn.A3/1169/08, dated 29.08.2008 of the 1st Respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary against the Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and pass such order and other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.V.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.LINGA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is directed against an order dated 29.08.2008 passed by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, whereunder the petitioner was placed under suspension, pending detailed enquiry into certain allegations made against him. It is stated in the impugned order that the petitioner has attempted to cause wrongful loss to the Government in abuse of his oﬃcial position as public servant and shown lack of integrity and devotion to duty in not obtaining prior permission or subsequent ratiﬁcation in preparing the cheque for payment to millers, who transported paddy by making their own transportation arrangements, under the condition that they would not be paid transportation charges and also in preparing the cheque in the name of unconcerned transporter without verifying whether the said transport contractor actually transported the paddy, as claimed. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the impugned order, except stating that the petitioner has attempted to cause wrongful loss, no other allegation is made. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the petitioner is an Oﬃcer, in- charge of aﬀairs of the District dealing with crores of rupees transactions every year and if such person issues cheques in the name of unconcerned persons it would deﬁnitely amounts to dereliction of duties and as such, in the public interest, the petitioner was rightly placed under suspension. I am in complete agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents and I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any suﬃcient cause calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter of suspension pending enquiry. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to ﬁle a detailed representation before the respondents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on making such representation, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of two weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner. No costs. __________ 15-10-2008 rkk