THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.14083 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer in the A.P. State Housing Corporation, 2nd respondent herein. The District Collector and Executive Director, 3rd respondent herein passed order, dated 28.04.2011 placing the petitioner under suspension. It was observed that financial irregularities in the execution of housing programme at Basheerabad Village and Mandal, to the tune of Rs.17,32,830/- were noticed and that a detailed enquiry is contemplated into the matter. The petitioner challenges the said order. He contends that the beneficiaries under the housing programme launched by the Government are chosen by the Village Information Agency comprising of Village Administrative Officer, Upa-sarpach etc and that the role of the Assistant Engineer of the Corporation is very limited. It is also stated that the approval for payment was accorded by him on the basis of the selection of the beneficiaries made by the Agency and that he was unnecessarily placed under suspension. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. In the recent past, populistic schemes were launched with phenomenal financial commitment by the Government but hardly with any administrative network to ensure transparency. The result was that huge amounts of money did not reach the beneficiaries. Many a time, some chosen employees are made scapegoats to exhibit that the Government is serious about transparency. The impugned proceedings do not specifically mention that the petitioner had misappropriated any specific amount. The amount that was not accounted for is mentioned. It is a matter to be enquired. By this time, the audit may have been conducted and enquiry may have progressed to a substantial extent. In such an event, the proceedings can be concluded within a period of two months. On the other hand, if no progress has been recorded or that the enquiry spills beyond two months, the petitioner can be reinstated into service. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of two months form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If for any reason, the proceedings are not concluded, the respondents shall reinstate the petitioner without prejudice to their right to proceed with the enquiry. If the working of the petitioner at the present station is found to be in any way detrimental to the enquiry, it shall be open to them to transfer him to another place after reinstatement. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 18.08.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.14083 of 2011 Date: 18.08.2011 JSU