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.28620 OF 2010 DATED:19.11.2010 Between: Yerupula Chandraiah … Petitioner And Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, rep. by its Divisional Engineer, Operation, Vikarabad, and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L . NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28620 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Lineman in the Central Power Distribution Company Limited, first respondent herein, at Manneguda. He was involved in Crime No.112 of 2010 on the file the Police Station, Parigi, in an offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. It is stated that the petitioner was in judicial custody for eighty (80) days. Taking note of that fact, the first respondent passed an order dt.04-09- 2010 placing the petitioner under suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The reason for placing the petitioner under suspension is his involvement in Crime No.112 of 2010 and having been arrested and kept in judicial custody in relation thereto. Service Regulations of the respondent – Company provide for placing of an employee under suspension, if he was in judicial custody for a period exceeding two (2) days. In the instant case, the petitioner was in judicial custody for eighty (80) days. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. It is not known as to whether the respondents have initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that charge sheet has been filed in the criminal case. There are Circulars issued by the Government as well as the erstwhile Electricity Board to the effect that when an employee is placed under suspension, on account of involvement in criminal case, the matter shall be reviewed after the charge sheet is filed. A decision must be taken as to whether it is necessary to continue the employee under suspension, particularly when the employer would be under obligation to pay the subsistence allowance without extracting any work. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall review the case of the petitioner in the light of the charge sheet and decide whether it is necessary to continue the petitioner under suspension. This exercise shall be undertaken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 19.11.2010 bnr