THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1596 OF 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Justice B Prakash Rao) The appellant/Telugu Academy files this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, aggrieved against the orders of the learned single Judge in W P No. 3872 of 2008 dated 31.10.2008 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, where he sought for writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 18.2.2008 placing him under suspension as being illegal and violative of Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The facts in brief , which are not in dispute are that under the impugned orders, the respondent/writ petitioner was suspended for misconduct of alleged financial irregularities. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working at the Regional Centre, Tirupati, thereafter, he was transferred on the ground that there were financial irregularities for the financial year 2005-06 as pointed out by the Audit party. An enquiry officer was appointed on 18.3.2008 and accordingly he was placed under suspension. On 19.3.2008 the writ petitioner was issued with charge sheet, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the entire allegations and by taking into account, the explanation, the said charges were dropped on 11.9.2008. This was followed by another show cause notice dated 12.9.2008 asking for explanation for those financial irregularities. The case of the petitioner was that the entire allegations, apart from the fact that they relate to much earlier period and his erstwhile placement at Tirupati and now that he was transferred to Visakapatnam and the question of suspension at this late hour, is wholly misconceived and unsustainable. The said writ petition was contested by the appellant herein denying every aspect and especially pointing out that the nature of allegations invoking financial irregularities warrant suspension and the impugned orders are perfectly valid. The learned Single Judge by taking into account the submissions made by both sides, allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground of long delay and especially when the earlier charges were dropped and respondents are adopting some trial and error methods for the purpose of conducting the enquiry. It was also observed that since the writ petitioner is transferred and posted at Visakapatnam and will not have any access to record and there cannot be any apprehension of tampering the records or influencing the witnesses. Hence, the appeal. On consideration of the contentions of both sides and on perusal of the material on record, the only point which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the order of suspension issued against the respondent/writ petitioner is sustainable or not? There being no dispute in regard to the aforesaid checkered events, especially with the allegations pertain to financial year 2005-06, at a time when the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in Telugu Academy, Regional Centre, Tirupati and later he was transferred to Visakapatnam. After lapse of 10 months or so, the impugned proceedings are issued on 18.2.2008 suspending him on those irregularities. Further simultaneously though a charge sheet was issued on 19.3.2008 but on receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, same was dropped on 11.9.2008 reserving right to conduct further proceedings. Fresh show cause notice was issued on 12.9.2008. Therefore, having regard to these tell tale events and lapses of noticeable long duration in between, the appellant cannot have any apprehension with regard to the influence being used since the writ petitioner already been transferred. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, there is no warrant for suspension at this juncture. Except pointing out that the allegations warrant suspension, for which, no other ground is urged there will not be any dispute so far as the proposition is concerned. However the long gap and transfer of the petitioner from the place of earlier work where the allegations are sought to be attributed, it cannot be said that there is any need for suspension, more so, when the charge sheet was issued and simultaneously the suspension proceedings were dropped after receipt of the explanation. Admittedly, subsequent to dropping of charges, no fresh enquiry either preliminary or otherwise conducted nor any other fresh material has been pointed out, warranting such extreme step of disturbing a regular employee. In support of the case, the appellant sought to place reliance on judgment in STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. HARBANS LAL[1] for the purpose of showing that an employee can be placed at suspension, even before charge sheet is issued. It is to be stated that there is no dispute in regard to the principle, but it is not on this account, the learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned order. In U P RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD Vs SANJIV RAJAN [2] while considering the scope of exercising the power to suspension, it was held that second suspension can be ordered and the effect being that the employees are kept out the mischief’s range by being suspended, however, in the present case, the employee is not working at the same place where the allegations are found to be attracted against, therefore, there cannot be any apprehension on the part of the appellant herein to seek such recourse to suspension. Hence, we are in entire agreement with the orders of the learned Single Judge and we do not find any warrant to interfere with the orders under appeal. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J __________________ B CHANDRA KUMAR,J DATE: 13 -11-2009 tvk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1596 OF 2008 Date: -11-2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1596 OF 2008 PD JUDGMENT FOR PERUSAL OF HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR [1] (2000) 6 SCC 504 [2] 1993 Supp (3) SCC 483