THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 17632 of 2007 Oral order: The petitioner is employed with the A.P. Housing Corporation Limited, as Deputy Executive Engineer. While so, an ACB raid was conducted on his residence and at his office. On the allegation that he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, the ACB registered a criminal case in Crime No. 4/RC.ACB-VZM/2007. In connection with the said case, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody on 08.05.2007. On the ground that the petitioner was in judicial remand, and that the case registered against him was in connection with his official position, the 2nd respondent, having regard to the provisions of Rule 8(2) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, vide orders dated 09.05.2007, placed the petitioner under suspension, until further order. Assailing the said orders of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of suspension does not contain the details of the assets possessed by the petitioner, which are disproportionate to the known sources of his income. He submitted that every year the petitioner is submitting the details of the properties owned by him as well as his family members, which are matters of record. He further submitted that on earlier occasion also, i.e. in the year 2001, the cases registered against him by the ACB, were dropped as they did not attract the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of that, he submitted that there is no reason for the 2nd respondent to place the petitioner under suspension, and prayed that the impugned order of suspension be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Housing for the 1st respondent-Government and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-A.P. Housing Corporation Limited, submitted that since the ACB having found that the petitioner acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of his income, registered a case, and in connection with the said case, he was in detention, the 2nd respondent having regard to the provisions of Rule 8(2) of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, placed the petitioner until further orders, and no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Housing for the 1st respondent-Government and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-A.P. Police Housing Corporation. May be the petitioner, was submitting the details of the properties owned by him, but the fact remains, whether the assets found by the ACB are the very same properties, which he had disclosed to the respondents every year, whether the assets possessed by him are disproportionate to the known sources of his income or not, and whether he acquired the same by making use of his official position, are matters of investigation in the case registered against him. But having regard to the fact that the petitioner is said to have been arrested and was under detention in connection with the disproportionate assets case, and that the investigation of the said case, had connection to his official position, the 2nd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension until further orders, and no exception can be taken thereto, and more so when suspension, pending investigation/enquiry is not a punishment. Once the investigation of the criminal case is over, the petitioner can make a request for revocation of his suspension, and more particularly when the 2nd respondent has not initiated any departmental enquiry. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 6th September, 2007. KSR