THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8911 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as an Assistant Stores Officer of IMFL Depot at Warangal established by the A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited, 1st respondent herein. Through proceedings, dated 06.01.2011, the Managing Director of the Corporation, 2nd respondent herein placed the petitioner under suspension. It was alleged that huge stock of unaccounted intoxicants was found with M/s.Sri Rama Wines, Maddur and during the course of investigation, one of the accused stated that the petitioner herein played an important role in arranging for such a stock. The petitioner challenges the said order. He contends that nothing was pointed out against him either by the Corporation or by any dealer and simply on the basis of the confession of an accused in an offence, he is placed under suspension. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. It is no doubt true that the impugned order itself reveals that the basis for placing the petitioner under suspension is the confession made by A.6 in a crime registered by the police. The extent to which such a statement is true, needs to be gone into in the ensuing departmental enquiry. It is not known as to whether the respondents have independently caused any enquiry into the acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner. It may not be safe to rest the suspension exclusively upon the confession of a third party. This Court is of the view that the enquiry into the role, if any, played by the petitioner in the episode that gave raise to the registration of a case against M/s. Sri Rama Wines needs to be conducted independently, if it has not been conducted so far. The suspension of the petitioner can be continued, if only independent charges are framed against him in the departmental proceedings. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry into the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the violation alleged against M/s. Sri Rama Wines within a period of four (4) months from today. In case, no charge memo is given within two (2) months, the 2nd respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service without prejudice to his right to proceed with the matter. If any charge memo is issued, by that time, the enquiry in relation thereto shall be concluded within two (2) months from the date of issuing the charge memo. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 18.08.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8911 of 2011 Date: 18.08.2011 JSU