IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8423 of 2009 Between: K.Kondi Ram S/o.Madhava Rao now merged with P.A.C.S. Echoda, Echoda Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Co-operative Officer, Adilabad. 2 Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd., Echoda, represented by its President, Echoda Mandal, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent No.2 has not been reviewing the order of suspension passed against the petitioner on 07.01.2006 in the light of G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008. Paragraph 3 of the said G.O. reads as under: “Accordingly, Government, hereby, direct that the employees who are under suspension for a period exceeding two years shall be reinstated pending finalisation of the disciplinary cases/criminal cases against them. However, in exceptional cases, for example, where the charged Officers are not cooperating for completion of investigation/inquiry or when the inquiry/investigation could not be completed due to pendency of litigation, a Committee headed by the Secretary of the administrative Department, Head of the Department concerned and an Official from the Anti Corruption Bureau (where the cases are emanated from Anti Corruption Bureau Investigation), shall review the orders of suspension against the employees who are continued under suspension well before completion of two years of suspension and take a decision to continue such employees under suspension beyond two years, duly recording the reasons for such a decision.” The petitioner claims to have made a representation to respondent No.2 on 04.09.2008, which does not appear to have received the attention it deserves from respondent No.2. On these facts, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner for reviewing the order of suspension in the light of G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.11023 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd APRIL, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in four days. kvni