THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P. No.10009 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was working as Assistant Field Officer in the Non-Conventional Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited (for short the ‘Corporation’). The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, the 1st respondent herein passed an order dated 04-03-2011, placing the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry. The same is challenged in this writ petition. It is urged that the impugned order is bereft of any reasons, and that there is absolutely no basis for it. The petitioner pleads that the 1st respondent passed the impugned order in a vindictive and arbitrary manner. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the recent review revealed that the performance of the petitioner is totally unsatisfactory, and the disciplinary proceedings are initiated in relation thereto. It is also pleaded that the suspension is ordered with a view to prevent the petitioner from tampering with the records or evidence, and that suspension pending enquiry cannot be treated as final. Heard Smt. Pushpinder Kaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. Through the impugned order, the 1st respondent placed the petitioner under suspension, in public interest, and pending enquiry. It is always competent for an appointing authority to suspend an employ in the organization, pending enquiry into grave charges and in public interest. The allegations that led to the suspension would be supplied in detail, in the form of a charge memo or a show cause notice. As long as the authority, which passed the order of suspension, is conferred with the jurisdiction, an order of suspension cannot be interfered with. It is only when an authority, which lacked jurisdiction, issues an order of suspension, or when it is totally motivated, as would be evident from the undisputed facts; that this Court would examine the legality thereof. The record discloses that an interim order was passed by this Court, on 29-04-2011, and the same was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.390 of 2011. The petitioner is not able to point out any jurisdictional errors or defects in the impugned order. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was being paid subsistence allowance at 50% of his pay scale. However, that was reduced on the allegation that the petitioner did not cooperate with the enquiry. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the view that the reduction of subsistence allowance was unwarranted. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order of suspension, but setting aside the order, through which the subsistence allowance of the petitioner was reduced. The respondents shall complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, within two months from today, and the petitioner shall cooperate with the same. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-08-2011. KO