IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9546 of 2008 Between: Syed Shabber Basha S/o. Syed Bade Saheb presently working Inspector Auditor, Chittoor, Residing at Chittoor. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Haj House Complex, Nampalli, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board, Haj House Complex, Nampalli, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in thenature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not passing orders on the appeal/representation made by the petitioner dated 24.7.2007, 25.8.2007, 4.12.2007, treating the period of suspension as leave instead of duty, is contrary to F.R.54 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, holding that the action in not disposing of the appeal amounts to derliction of duty can be termed as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and malafide; and pass such other or further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRSYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR WAKF BOARD)ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9546 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as an Inspector Auditor in the A.P. Wakf Board. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on 25.07.1997, by serving a charge memo. Enquiry officer submitted his report, dated 10.09.1998. Vide its resolution, dated 16.12.1998, the Board has exonerated the petitioner, of the charges. However, no order was passed, as to the manner, in which the period of suspension shall be treated. When an objection was raised in the audit, as regards the same, the Special Officer of the Board passed an order, dated 25.05.2007, directing that the period of 508 days be treated as leave, to the credit of the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation, dated 24.07.2007, with a prayer to treat the period of suspension as on duty. His grievance is that the representation has not been disposed of so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Wakf Board. Though the petitioner was exonerated of the charges by the Board, no specific order was passed, as to the manner, in which the period of suspension shall be treated. When an audit objection was raised about this, unilateral step was taken to treat the period as on leave, to which the petitioner is entitled. That obviously would cause substantial loss to the petitioner, be it, in the form of loss of leaves, or loss of salary, wherever the leave is not available. The representation made by the petitioner in this regard cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the petitioner on 24.07.2007, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 02.05.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9546 of 2008 Date: 02.05.2008 JSU