IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7651 of 2000 Between: D.U.M.L.Deva rao S/o.S.V.Prasad Deva rao R/o.palakol , W.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Lok Ayukta of A.P Hyderabad. 2 The Dist Collector W.G.Dist , Eluru 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Narsapur , W.G.Dist 4 The Station House Officer Achanta Police Station Achanta , W.G.Dist. 5 Ch.Satyanarayana S/o.Satti Raju Ayodhyalanka (V) , Bheemalapuram , Achanta Mandal W.G.Dist. .....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 May be pleased to call for the records in Complaint No: 699/97/B1 Dt: 11-10-99 on the file of the Lok Ayukta of A.P.and quash the same and consequential criminal complaint in FIR No: 12 of 2000 on the file of the Station House Officer , Achanta Police Station and Consequential Proceedings in R.O.C No: A4.9440/99(Revenue) dt: 11-2-2000 on the file of the 2nd respondent as the same are illegal , arbitrary and issue without Jurisdiction by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ , order or direction and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.V.R.SUBRAHMANYAM The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRR} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY W.P.No.7651 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings in R.O.C.No.A4.9440/99 (Revenue), dated 11-02-2000 issued by the 2nd respondent, as the same are illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that if any offence is committed by any private or public servant, it is always open to register a case by the police and it is for them to investigate into the matter and take appropriate action against the person by whom the offence is committed. But in the present case, pursuant to the orders dated 11-10-1999 passed in Complaint No.699/97/131, issued by the 1st respondent-Lok Ayukta of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent-District Collector, filed a complaint, on the basis of material that was gathered during the course of the investigation, and adduced by the complainant. He further submits that the 1st respondent, without hearing the petitioner, further directed the 2nd respondent to consider the necessity for suspending the petitioner and others after giving a criminal complaint to the police. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, only based on the order dated 11-10-1999, placed the petitioner under suspension by the impugned order dated 11-02-2000. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned order. 4. A perusal of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent makes it clear, that the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order. Further, the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to consider the necessity of suspension, but never directed him to suspend the petitioner. However, based on the observations of the 1st respondent in the order dated 11-10-1999, the 2nd respondent suspended the services of the petitioner on the ground that the criminal case is registered against the petitioner. Merely because a criminal case is registered against a public servant, there is no necessity to suspend him unless he is put in custody for a statutory period. The suspension period cannot be indefinite, particularly, in the case of this nature. 5. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the disciplinary authority did not pass the suspension order independently, but pursuant to the directions issued by the 1st respondent only, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Therefore, the impugned is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11-02-2000, passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector, West Godavari, Eluru, is set aside and keeping it open for the 2nd respondent to consider the case independently, whether it is desirable to initiate departmental proceedings, in addition to the criminal case, and whether it is just and proper to suspend the petitioner pending enquiry. 7. With the aforementioned direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH _____________________________ 15th July 2009 JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY Ksh/Kvr