THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26416 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Junior Plant Attendant in Srisailam Project Unit of A.P.GENCO, 2nd respondent herein. The Superintendent Engineer, 3rd respondent herein passed an order dated 09.07.2011 placing the petitioner under suspension, on the ground that she was involved in a criminal case and was arrested on 30.06.2011. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that her minor son, by name Siddaiah was kidnapped by a woman, by name K.Vijaya Kumari, who is elder to Siddaiah and forcibly married him. The petitioner is said to have submitted a complaint on 21.04.2010 before the Police and has approached the State Human Rights Commission. It is alleged that as a counter-blast, Vijaya Kumari lodged a complaint against the petitioner under Section 506 of I.P.C. read with Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. on 22.06.2011 and the police in turn had arrested the petitioner. It is stated that the arrest of the petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the performance of duties. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The only basis for the 3rd respondent to place the petitioner under suspension was that she was arrested on 30.06.2011 by the police obviously because Regulation 56 of the Service Regulations Part-I mandates that an employee who is arrested and kept in judicial custody for a period of 48 hours shall be placed under suspension, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order. No exception can be taken to the exercise of power. However, the continued suspension of the petitioner needs to be examined with reference to the background, in which it came to be passed. The petitioner is a woman employee and she was arrested on the basis of a complaint submitted by another lady. There was a serious dispute between those two persons in relation to the son of the petitioner herein. The acts and omissions against the petitioner do not involve any moral turpitude. The suspension of the petitioner does in no way help the organization, particularly when no disciplinary proceedings were initiated. On the other hand, they would be under obligation to pay subsistence allowance without extracting any work form the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:21.09.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18156 of 2002 Date: 21.09.2011 JSU