IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12207 of 2008 Between: Smt. B.Subhashini Devamma, W/o. G.Satish Vijaya Kumar, A.P. Residential School for (BC-Boys), Srisailam,Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational, Institutions society Registered Hyderabad. rep by its Vice Chairman , Gagan Vihar Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary,Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational, Institutions society Registered, Gagan Vihar Complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings Rc.No.1659/A1-1/08, dt. 28-05-2008 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as being illegal arbitrary and contrary to the rules by issuing WRIT OF CERTIORARI and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.GANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12207 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher on 27.07.1996 by the A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society, 1st respondent herein. Thereafter, she was promoted as Principal, vide proceedings, dated 14.12.2005, and posted at the Residential School, Srisailam, Kurnool District. The petitioner states that after assuming the charge at Srisailam, she issued circulars, directing that the staff members should not avail the services of the students, and that being dissatisfied with that, frivolous complaints were made against her. It is stated that though she submitted a detailed explanation to the memo issued by the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings, dated 28.05.2008, the 1st respondent placed her under suspension, pending enquiry. She assails the order of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis indicated in the impugned order is as vague as it could be and no specific act or omission constituting misconduct was mentioned against the petitioner. He contends that the impugned order was passed only as a vindictive measure. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the suspension is pending enquiry and it is only during the departmental enquiry, that specific allegations would be informed to the petitioner, and the truth or otherwise of the same would be enquired into. Interference with the orders of suspension pending enquiry is almost exceptional. It is only where the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or mala fides are pleaded, that this Court would endeavour to examine the legality of such orders. The appointing authority cannot be expected to reveal the entire basis for placing the employee under suspension. During the departmental enquiry, specific charges are to be framed and enquiry is to be conducted. The petitioner is not able to point out any serious legal defect in the order of suspension. At any rate, one month has already elapsed, ever since the impugned order was passed. The interests of the petitioner can be protected, by directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, within a period of three months. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order of suspension, but directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 27.06.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12207 of 2008 Date: 27.06.2008 JSU