HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2999 OF 2010. DATED 3rd MARCH, 2010. BETWEEN. Md. Mazhar Syfuddin Khan ….Petitioner and The Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rkep. By its Registrar, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2999 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as an Agricultural Extension Oﬃcer in the ﬁrst respondent-University. His wife, by name, Minhaj Fathima, submitted a complaint on 08.09.2009 in the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and his other family members, alleging that she has been harass in the name of additional dowry. F.I.R.No.443 of 2009 was registered and the petitioner and his other family members were arrested on 21.10.2009. The petitioner was granted bail on 26.10.2009 by the concerned Court. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was in prison for more than forty eighty hours, the ﬁrst respondent-University passed an order dated 30.01.2010 placing the petitioner under suspension in terms of sub-rule (1)(C) of Rule 8 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 adopted by the ﬁrst respondent-University. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same and contends that his arrest is neither in relation to service nor any allegations of moral turpitude are made against him. He challenges the order of suspension. The respondents ﬁled counter aﬃdavit resisting the Writ Petition. Relevant Rule is referred to and it is stated that suspension order passed against the petitioner accords with the Rule. Heard Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Suresh Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-University. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was arrested in connection with C.C.No.443 of 2009 on the allegations referable Sections 498(A) and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Five days after being arrested, he was released on bail. Rule 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 empowers the ﬁrst respondent-University to place an employee under suspension in case he is detained in prison for a period exceeding forty-eight hours. Viewed in this context, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. Suspension pending investigation or enquiry is resorted to as a precautionary and preventive measure, l e s t the employee interferes or meddles with the investigation or departmental proceedings. Such a course can be justiﬁed if the allegation made against the employee relates to any matters of service or of moral turpitude. Where allegations relate to private life of an employee and they do not have any wider implications, suspension pending enquiry would not be in public interest. On the other hand, it would cause loss to the public exchequer and the organization would be denied of the services of the employee. In P. Rajender Vs. Union of India and another[1], a Division Bench of this Court dealt with the matter of similar in nature after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Appropriate Authority Vs. R.C. Chawla[2], this Court held that a mechanical order of suspension passed without proper application of mind would become illegal. In paragraph 20 of the said Judgement, it held: “There is lot of diﬀerence between a case where the Government servant is charged with allegations of corruption and misuse of oﬃcial position and where an employee is charged of oﬀences in relation to a private dispute” As observed earlier, in the instant case, the allegations levelled against the petitioner pertain to his private life and do not disclose any acts of misconduct, corruption, or misuse of financial position. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.01.2010 in proceedings No.44998/V&LC/A2/2009 passed by the ﬁrst respondent- University is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY DATED 3rd MARCH, 2010. Msnr. [1] {2001(5) ALD 229 (DB)} [2] {(2001) 4 SCC 710}