IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20115 of 2008 Between: Raja Ram Reddy S/o.A.Hanumanth Reddy R/o.Plot No. 101, Sai Kerthi Residency Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registration of Cooperative Societies, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad. 3 The Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Market Road, Karimnagar, rep. byits President, Karra Rajasekhar S/o. Narasaiah. 4 Karra Rajasekhar S/o.Narasaiah The Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd Market Road, Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dt. 9.9.2008 in reference No. 4069/08 passed by the 4th respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and be pleased to pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4: Sri B. Adinarayana Rao The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :20115 of 2008 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order dated 9.9.2008 passed by respondent No. 4. Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. The issue raised in this writ petition pertains to the validity of order of suspension dated 9.9.2008. The petitioner, who is the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.3-Bank was placed under suspension by the said order on certain alleged irregularities in appointing the gold appraiser and sanctioning loan. The petitioner alleged mala fides against the President of respondent No.3-Bank, by impleading him in his personal capacity as party respondent No.4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, the allegations of mala fides are denied. At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that though interim order of suspension was granted on 16.9.2008, the petitioner has not been attending the office since then. Sri B. Vijayasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner denied this submission. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that as the nature of the order impugned in this writ petition is one of suspension pending enquiry, it is not necessary for this Court to pronounce upon the mala fides attributed against respondent No.4. The fact remains that the petitioner is facing serious allegations, which require to be enquired into in the enquiry. The existence of power in respondent No.3 to place the petitioner under suspension is not in dispute. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of suspension. The writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.3 shall pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner and complete the enquiry within a period of four months from today. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 2nd April, 2009 pnb