IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1670 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 10/11/2008 in WP NO : 24204 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: P.V.B.L.S.S. Ananda Rao S/o. Late Seetha Ramaiah, APCO., Vizianagaram. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 A.P. State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd. Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Weavers Bhavan, 3-5-790, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. 2 Mr. B. Venkateswara Rao A.P. State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd.,Weavers Bhavan, 3-5-790, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Divisional Marketing Officer APCO. Poolbagh Colony, Vizianagaram. 4 Mr. M. Seshagiri Rao A.P. State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd. Weavers Bhavan, 3-5-790, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. 5 The Assistant Director of Handlooms APCO.,A.P. State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd.,Weavers Bhavan, 3-5-790, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. 6 The Senior Inspector/Auditor Dept. of Cooperation, Govt. of A.P. O/o. Divisional Marketing Officer, APCO.Bhavan, Poolbagh Colony, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant : MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents : MR.CH.JAGANNADHA RAO The Court made the following : JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Heard the learned advocates. The appellant has been placed under suspension by an order dated 22nd September 2008, which has been challenged in the writ petition. It was prayed in the writ petition that by an interim order, the order of suspension should be suspended, but the learned single Judge was pleased to reject the said prayer with regard to interim relief. Being aggrieved by rejection of W.P.M.P.No.31543 of 2008, by order dated 10th November 2008, this appeal has been filed. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of litigation, the appellant–original petitioner has already been charge-sheeted on 6th November 2008 along with three other employees. The charges appear to be serious. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the appellant could not have been suspended before issuance of charge sheet. We do not find any substance in this appeal, and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the appellant apprehends that the proceedings will be delayed by the respondent– employer. The learned advocate has further submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to extend his cooperation so as to see that the inquiry proceedings are concluded as soon as possible. We are sure that the respondent–employer and the concerned authorities shall take due care to see that the inquiry proceedings are concluded as soon as possible, as even the appellant has assured his cooperation in the inquiry proceedings. Another submission which has been made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant is with regard to making a representation for reconsidering the decision with regard to his suspension. If such a representation is made, it will be open to the respondent– employer to reconsider the issue with regard to suspension of the appellant. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 18th December 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr