IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L . NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.30123 OF 2010 DATED:02.12.2010 Between: Siripurapu Surappadu … Petitioner And M/s. Sainik School, Korukonda Rep. by its Chairman, L.B.A., Flag Officer, Command-in-Chief E.N. Command, Naval Headquarters Visakhapatnam and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L . NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.30123 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Supervisor in the Sainik School, Korukonda, the second respondent herein. He was tried for offences under Sections 341, 325, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code in C.C. No.701 of 2009 by the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram. The trial Court convicted him through judgment dt.17.3.2010 and imposed the punishment of simple imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a simple imprisonment for one month. He filed Criminal Appeal No.43 of 2010 in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, and the lower appellate Court suspended the sentence. The second respondent passed an order dt.01.10.2010 placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that he was convicted in a criminal case. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Left to themselves the respondents did not initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The suspension is not on the ground that the petitioner was in judicial custody for a period exceeding forty-eight hours. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case. The fact, however, remains that an appeal is pending against the order of conviction and the lower appellate Court has suspended the sentence. Reference is not made to any Rule that is invoked against the petitioner while placing him under suspension. Further, no moral turpitude is either alleged or is involved. It is not in the interest of the respondents at all, to place the petitioner under suspension and incur the liability of payment of subsistence allowance without extracting any work from him. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, directed that it shall be open to the respondents to review the matter after the criminal appeal is disposed of. The petitioner shall be under obligation to inform the result in the criminal case immediately to the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 02.12.2010 bnr