IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24766 of 2008 Between: M. Prem Kumar, S/o. Joga Rao, Paloncha, Khammam District. R/o. Qtr.No. BF-313, B Colony, KTPS, Paloncha, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Power General Corporation Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Rep.b yits Managing Director. 2 The Chief Engineer, Operation and Maintenance Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Paloncha, Khammam 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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in placing the Petitioner under suspension vide impugned Memo No. CE/O&M/KTPS/L1/ADM./D.NO. 144/08; Dt. 25-09-2008, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned Memo No.CE/O&M/KTPS/L1/ADM./D.NO. 144/08; Dt. 25-09-2008, of the 2nd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: DR.K.SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM(SC FOR AP GENCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 25.9.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent – Chief Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Paloncha placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner while working as Plant Attendant at MRT-B station, Paloncha, Khammam District was issued with the impugned memo, keeping him under suspension on the ground that he involved in a criminal case under Section 449, 354 and 506 IPC. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suspension order is passed without applying any mind and that the same is not in the public interest as contemplated by the Division Bench of this Court in P.Rajender v. Union of India [1]. The learned counsel contends that a false case is foisted against the petitioner by the complainant and, in fact, the complainant has borrowed certain amount from the petitioner and also executed a promissory note and when the petitioner went to her place to collect the amount, she falsely implicated him in the case stating that he tried to outrage her modesty. Further, the complaint was lodged after five days of the alleged incident. Since the charges levelled against the petitioner are absolutely false, basing on such allegations, placing the petitioner under suspension is unwarranted. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents inter alia stating that the petitioner is accused in Crime No.145 of 2008 registered for the offences under Sections 448, 354 and 506 of IPC and a charge sheet was also filed before the Court of the II Additional 1st Class Magistrate, Kothagudem. The petitioner was arrested on 21.8.2008 and remanded to judicial custody and he was in jail from 21.8.2008 to 12.9.2008 and thereafter, released on bail. As per Regulation 11(b) of the A.P.S.E.B. Discipline and Appeal Regulations, which were adopted by the respondents, ‘any employee who is detained in custody for a period of more than 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended from the date of arrest’ and basing on the said regulation, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation at length and perused the material placed before the Court. So far as the criminal case is concerned, as already stated, after completing investigation, the police has laid the charge sheet and the matter is pending before the competent criminal court. Suspension pending investigation, inquiry or trial is interim in nature. The Division Bench of this Court in P.Rajender vs. Union of India(supra) while considering the parameters of placing an employee under suspension, has already held that before passing such an order, the appropriate authority shall not only take into consideration the public interest but shall also take into consideration the relevant facts and attendant circumstances and decide whether it is necessary to keep the employee under suspension or not. That apart, the employer has also to see whether reinstating the petitioner into service while the criminal proceedings are going on would in any manner affect his day to day functioning. As already stated, the complaint was lodged by the complainant after five days of the incident. The main case of the petitioner is that he lent some money to the complainant and when he went to her place to collect the amount, she implicated him in the case. A perusal of the order clearly shows that investigation is already over and a charge sheet is laid and the case is pending before the criminal court. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from total non-application of mind inasmuch as the order was made without indicating as to what is the stage of the investigation or inquiry or trial of the case and how it would affect the functioning of the petitioner in the department. The application of mind on the part of the competent authority is sine qua non for passing such an order of suspension. The order only states that ‘the petitioner in his representation stated that he was involved in a criminal case under Section 447, 354 & 506 IPC and arrested on 21.8.2008 at about 10.00 hours and remanded to judicial custody from 21.8.2008 to 12.9.2008 in Khammam Sub-jail and released on 12.9.2008.’ Therefore, before passing the impugned suspension order, the authorities have not taken into consideration the relevant facts and attendants circumstances as also the public interest. The question as to whether the petitioner had in fact indulged in the offence of outraging the modesty of the complainant in the light of the promissory note executed by her in favour of the petitioner and whether it would have any impact on his continuing to work in the organization despite the fact that investigation had already been completed and charge sheet has also been filed in the criminal case were relevant factors tobe taken into consideration by the authority empowered to pass the suspension order at the time of passing such an orer. For the foregoing reasons, the respondents are directed to reconsider the suspension order passed against the petitioner taking into consideration the parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in P.Rajender vs. Union of India as also the facts of the present case and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. N.V.RAMANA,J msv Dt.03.12.2008 [1] (2001) 5 ALD 290