THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.1754 OF 2008 DATED: 07-02-2008 Gadela Appa Rao … Petitioner versus 1.State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, GAD, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.1754 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing for the respondents. 2. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the main writ petition itself can be disposed of, at the stage of admission, since the question involved is very short i.e., the desirability of continuing the petitioner under suspension, and accordingly we dispose of the same by this order. 3. This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue writ of mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Memo No.36761/Service.C/2004, dated 12.03.2004, issued by the 1st respondent, insofar as it relates to directing/requesting the disciplinary authority to suspend the employees who are involved in disproportionate assets cases and consequently Memo No.27854/Vig.I (1) 2006-1, dated 12.07.2006, issued by the 2nd respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires to Rule 8 of the A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991 and set aside the same, and consequently declare the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in CCT Rf.No.VI/317/2006, dated 26.08.2006, as illegal, null, void and arbitrary by setting aside the dismissal order, dated 05.11.2007, passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in O.A.No.5256 of 2006. 4. Petitioner is the applicant and the respondents are the respondents, in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 5. The factual background is that pursuant to the requisition made by the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (for brevity “ACB”), the Government, vide Memo, dated 12.07.2006, decided to place the petitioner under suspension and requested the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, to take necessary action against him; that, accordingly, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, after careful consideration of the material available, placed the petitioner under suspension by order, dated 26.08.2006; that the said requisition, by the concerned authority, was owing to the provisional findings by the investigating authority that the petitioner was involved in a case of disproportionate assets and that First Information Report appears to have been registered, pursuant to the same. But, neither the department nor the competent Criminal Court could proceed either with an enquiry or trial, for want of final report from ACB. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, who has been kept under suspension, is still under suspension, because of non- submission of final report by ACB. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that keeping an employee under suspension is not automatic in a case where the employee was involved in disproportionate assets. On this behalf, he placed reliance on the order, dated 16.02.2004, of a Division Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.2514 of 2004, and also the order, dated 05.07.2007, of a learned single Judge of this Court, in W.P.M.P.No.17992 of 2007 in W.P.No.14322 of 2007. 8. Notwithstanding the above principle, even if tested on merits of the present case, we are of the view that the reasons for not submitting the final report by ACB is not discernible and, on that account, the petitioner is facing suspension for the past one and half years, which may not be desirable. We are clear at this juncture itself that keeping the employee under suspension, for such a long time, is not desirable, but, prima facie, it appears that the desirability or otherwise in keeping the petitioner under suspension, has to be given a second thought. 9. In order to arrive at such a conclusion, this Court has its own limitations, inasmuch as, we have gone into the merits of the case and are of the view that it requires more exercise, which we are not inclined to do at this stage. Therefore, we feel it expedient to direct the petitioner to make a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the competent authority, and upon such representation being made, the same shall be considered and disposed of within a period of four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law, after making assessment, on a realistic basis, as regards the desirability of continuing the petitioner under suspension, without waiting for final report from ACB. 10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------- JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA --------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 7TH February 2008 Note: Issue CC in 5 days. B/o Hsd