IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 12364 of 2009 Between: Dasari Venkataiah S/o. Sundaraiah, R/o. 241, Yash Colony, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APGENCO Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, APGENCO Limited, O & M, KTPS-V Stage, Paloncha, Khammam District. .....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 issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders CE/O&M/KTPS-V STAGE/PO/ADM/A1/F.29E/D.No.241/09, dated 08.05.2009 of the 2nd respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension in a routine manner even though no such suspension is warranted as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of constitution of India and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned suspension orders, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P. NO.12364 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the orders passed by the Chief Engineer, A.P. GENCO exercising the power available to him under Regulation 11 of the A.P.S.E.B. Discipline and Appeal Regulations and placing the writ petitioner under suspension. The backdrop of this case is that a case in Crime No.238 of 2008 under Section 506, 509 and 452 of I.P.C. were registered by Manuguru Town Police station against the writ petitioner upon a complaint said to have been lodged by one Smt.K.Suvarna Rekha. The writ petitioner was arrested on 28-10-2008 at 17-00 hours and he was released from the judicial custody on 30-10-2008 but however, for his detention pursuant to involvement in the Criminal case, the writ petitioner came to be placed under suspension. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in a crime, as he has insisted for returning certain money said to have been advanced by him for the family members of the complainant. The writ petitioner submits that he has never indulged in any conduct, requiring him to be proceeded against in a criminal court. However, these are all questions, which have got to be examined by the competent authority. The authority, which is competent to place an employee under suspension, is liable to review the case periodically, inasmuch as the service of the employee cannot be utilized during the period of his suspension and at the same time, a financial burden is thrown against the employer by way of paying him subsistence allowance during the interregnum period. If the situation of the case does not warrant any further continuance of the employee under suspension, it is open to the disciplinary authority to review the matter and reinstate him as well. The disciplinary authority will be in a position to take all factors into account including the factum of a charge sheet filed by the police against the employee, in case the investigation carried out by them has revealed the involvement of the individual in the crime alleged against him. Realizing these prospects, the Chief Engineer who passed the impugned order, has communicated through his letter dated 06th July, 2009 that the disciplinary proceedings, if at, all are going to be initiated against the writ petitioner, would be completed within a period of three months. 2. In view of the statement of the respondent/Chief Engineer, it would be appropriate to direct him to complete the enquiry into any disciplinary action initiated by the respondent against the conduct of the writ petitioner and incase no disciplinary proceedings are being initiated, the factors relating to the case may be considered by reviewing appropriately the order of the suspension passed against the writ petitioner. In the result, a decision one way or the other be taken on or before 30th September, 2009 and communicate the same to the petitioner. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. _________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. JULY 07, 2009. Dsh.