HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3073 OF 2010 Between: Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, represented by its Managing Director ..... PETITIONER AND P. Manohar Babu S/o Pullaiah and two others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 25.1.2010 passed in O.A.No. 12978 of 2009 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal and quash the same as illegal. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent in this Writ Petition is an employee of the petitioner Board working as Director (Operations) with effect from 27.10.2009. The ACB authorities conducted raids on his residence and at various places on 9.12.2009 and found that he is in possession of huge assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income and he was arrested by them and produced before the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad and was remanded to judicial custody. It is stated that a radio message dated 10.12.2009 was received by the Petitioner from the ACB authorities, wherein it was stated that a Crime No. 41/ACB-CIU-HYD/2009 under Section 13(2) R/w 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the respondent and investigation is under progress. Considering the radio message, and also the fact that the respondent was under detention for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 17.12.2009 by exercising the powers conferred under Rules 8(2)(a) and 8(5) of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. The respondent was under detention and thereafter he was granted bail on 29.12.2009. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, the respondent herein filed O.A No. 12978 of 2009 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by order dated 25.1.2010 allowed the O.A by setting aside the suspension order dated 17.12.2009 directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent/ applicant from suspension within two days. Hence, being aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water supply and Sewerage Board. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal suffers from serious infirmity, illegal and procedural irregularities and contrary to APCS (CC&A) Rules. The Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the executive instructions when the suspension is governed by CC &A Rules. Rule 8 (2)(a) of the A.P. C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991(for short “CCA Rules”) reads as under: “Rule 8 Suspension: (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the authority competent to place him under suspension--- (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty-eight hours;” He also drawn our attention to Rule 8(5)(a) of the Rules, which reads as under: “(5) (a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by an authority to which that authority is subordinate.” He further contended that it is impermissible on the part of the Tribunal to undertake the exercise of setting aside the proceedings dated 17.12.2009 by directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant- respondent from suspension within two days without any application of mind. On the other hand, Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant contended that the Tribunal has not committed any error and the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity and apart from that some similarly situated persons exonerated from suspension. He also contended that executive instructions with regard to disproportionate assets have taken care of by the Government and the Tribunal has considered it in a proper perspective. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Tribunal is justified. The contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, that the Tribunal passed the order without any application of mind, in this case does not arise. This contention is merit less inasmuch as the suspension order is passed under Rule 8 (2)(a) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. The respondent-applicant arrested by the ACB officials at 5.30 PM on 9.12.2009 and remanded to judicial custody and he was released on bail on 29.12.2009, thereafter, the Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Hyderabad vide proceedings dated 17.12.2009 kept the applicant under suspension under Rule 8(2)(a) of APCS (CC &A) Rules, 1991. Hence, the contention that the Tribunal without any application of mind passed the order does not hold good. So far as the second contention is concerned that the Tribunal exceeded its limit by undertaking the exercise of setting aside the proceedings dated 17.12.2009 by directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant- respondent from suspension within two days, which is impermissible under law. So also the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant that some similarly situated persons exonerated from suspension that by itself does not confer any legal right inasmuch as if any concessions are given also, the respondent-applicant cannot claim as a matter of right. Hence, that contention also has no merit In the circumstances, the portion of the order passed by the Tribunal ‘ that the impugned proceedings dated 17.12.2009 issued by the second respondent is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant from suspension within two days from the date of receipt of the order’ is hereby quashed and the Writ Petition is allowed. However, we deem it appropriate that the respondent-applicant shall make a representation to the authorities concerned for appropriate action in this regard as per Rule 8(5)(a) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, within a period of two weeks and the competent authority shall consider and dispose of the same by passing appropriate orders within a period of one month thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD ,J DATE: 09.03.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.