IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9998 of 2008 Between: A. Mohan S/o.A. Pedda Rama Raju O/o. Deputy Executive Engineer, Colleges Sub-Division, T.T. Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer, T.T. Devasthanams, K.T. Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2 The Chief Engineer , T.T. Devasthanams, K.T. Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 3 The Dy. Executive Engineer, Colleges Sub-Division, T.T. Devasthanams, K.T. Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare that the order of the suspension Proceedings No. Roc DA5/2512/2007 dt. 20-3-2008 issued by the respondents in keeping the petitioner of suspension is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and thereby set aside the same declaring it as against the Provisions of service law and infringing Article 14, 16 r/w 309 constitution of India with all consequential benefits treating it as on duty in the interests of justice and equity and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.SAMINENI KISHORE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO (SC FOR TTD) The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is working as Assistant Technical Officer (Colleges) in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati. Vide proceedings, dated 20.3.2008, the 3rd respondent had placed the petitioner under suspension, on the ground that the petitioner is facing trial in a criminal case. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order. Sri Samineni Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents have invented the said ground for placing the petitioner under suspension, though the case was registered, way back in the year 2006. He contends that the order was pressed into service, only when the petitioner reported to duty and had approached this court, when he was not permitted to join. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that once the petitioner has figured as an accused, in a case registered under Section 302 I.P.C., he cannot be continued in service, and it is only after the disposal of the criminal case, that the petitioner can pursue his remedies. It is a settled principle of law that an employee, who is facing serious charges in any criminal case, is liable to be placed under suspension. In the instant case, the petitioner is facing trial in Crime No.62 of 2006 of P.S. Karavetinagar, registered under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. One aspect, which needs to be specially mentioned, is that the 3rd respondent ought to have maintained some restraint, in the wording of the impugned order. It is for the concerned Criminal Court to decide, as to whether the petitioner is guilty of the charge leveled against him. It was not at all necessary to make a mention of the alleged charge, or the victim, in the order of suspension. When the petitioner could have been placed under suspension, on the ground that he figured as an accused in the said case, the 3rd respondent could have avoided mentioning about the details of the crime, as well as the victim. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner, to work out his remedies, depending on the outcome of the criminal case, which is pending against him. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 1st May 2008 PAN