IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16333 of 2008 Between: K. Viswanadha Sastri, S/o. K. Kameswara Rao, Syndicate Bank, Mehdipatnam Branch, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Senior Manager, Syndicate Bank, Mehdipatnam Branch, Hyderabad. 2 General Manager, Regional Office (City Hyderabad), Syndicate Bank, Poineer House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 Dy. General Manager (Personnal), Syndicate Bank, H/o. Manipal, Karnataka. .....RESPONDENTS 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 3rd respondent bank in issuing the impugned proceedings dt. 12-6-2008 through 1st respondent in suspended the petitioner from the service without issuing the Show cause notice or without conducting proper enquiry is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the under article 14 of the constitution of India and consequentially set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BOKKA SATYANARAYANA & KAMLA SEELAM B. Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Manager, JMGS-I in Syndicate Bank. The third respondent passed an order, dated 12.06.2008, placing the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is without any basis. According to him, the respondents on the one hand coerced the petitioner to deposit certain amount and on the other, that very fact was taken by them to place the petitioner under suspension. He further submits that except a bald allegation, there is nothing on record to warrant the suspension of the petitioner. Suspension pending enquiry is a measure, resorted to by the employer to ensure that no further damage is caused to the organization on account of the continued active service of the employee. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the employee needs to be enquired into in the disciplinary proceedings. Strictly speaking, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the employee on account of mere suspension. The reason is that it is only a measure pending enquiry and the interests of the employees are taken care of by paying subsistence allowance with periodical enhancements. The occasion to interfere with the order of suspension would arise, if only an order is passed by an authority not vested with the power or where no basis, as such, is indicated in the order of suspension itself. Such factors are not pleaded in this writ petition. It cannot be said that there does not exist any basis for the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension. The apprehension of the petitioner that the suspension would be prolonged for years together can be allayed by requiring the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, as early as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order of suspension, by directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:29.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}