THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26322 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited, respondent No.1 herein. The Chief General Manager (HRD), respondent No.2 herein, placed the petitioner under suspension through memo, dated 14.09.2011. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the impugned memo was issued based upon a letter, dated 13.09.2011, addressed by the Divisional Electricity Engineer (Operations), respondent No.4 herein, and even if the contents of the said letter are taken into account, virtually nothing emerges. He further contends that except that respondent No.4 has expressed his personal displeasure against the petitioner, nothing relevant is mentioned therein. It is also stated that no efforts were made by respondent No.4 to verify the stock position with reference to the Stock Register and unverified comments were made. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry into certain grave allegations. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer has already been appointed and the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioner would be decided in the enquiry. The only basis for respondent No.2 to place the petitioner under suspension is the letter, dated 13.09.2011, addressed by respondent No.4. The nature of misconduct attributed to the petitioner is referable to a sentence which reads as under: “After completion of the meeting, I visited the office premises and found missing of iron material such as poles, MS channel etc which were dismantled during renovation works and kept in front of the office premises on road side.” In case respondent No.4 entertained any doubt as to the stock position, he ought to have verified the matter with the in- charge or the petitioner himself. Without taking any such steps, he has drawn his own inferences. The plea that respondent No.4 is inimically disposed against the petitioner is evident from the fact that he has referred to certain previous instances. The service of an employee in a public sector undertaking cannot be subjected to such whims and fancies. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned memo is set aside. It is, however, left open to respondent No.2 to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:27.09.2011. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl