IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 9983 OF 2010 Between: Velpula Yakobu, S/o.V. Sangaiah ..... Petitioner & The Conservator of Forests, Guntur Circle, Guntur District and four others .....Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WP NO.9983 of 2010 ORDER : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) The petitioner while he was working as Deputy Range Officer was placed under suspension vide order dated 23-1-2010 by the 1st respondent on the ground that he obstructed Velagalapaya Section staff of Turimella of Giddaluru range and forcibly taken over the vehicle involved in illicit transportation. 2. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed OA No.547 of 2010 on the ground that the action of the 1st respondent ultra vires Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. It was stated that though other forest officials were also equally involved in the case, the authorities have placed him under suspension, which is highly arbitrary and discriminatory. The Tribunal by the impugned order declined to interfere with the suspension order passed against the petitioner and dismissed the OA. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that placing the petitioner alone under suspension, when other forest officials were also involved, is arbitrary and unfair and amounts to selective suspension and, therefore, is impermissible. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-II, submitted that disciplinary action is initiated against all the persons involved in the case and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to go into the various allegations made against the petitioner. Inasmuch as it is stated that the disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner and others involved, the allegation that the petitioner has been singled out for selective treatment and his suspension is ‘selective suspension’ cannot be appreciated. The decision of the Supreme Court in K.SUKHENDRA REDDY vs. STATE OF AP1 is not applicable to the facts of the case as there is no selective suspension and the suspension period, in the instant case is not prolonged for indefinite period. However, to meet the ends of justice, we direct the disciplinary authority to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ____________________ G. Bhavani Prasad, J Dated: 28-4-2010 Nrg. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WP NO.9983 of 2010 ORDER : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) 28-4-2010 1 (1999) 6 SCC 257