IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 27793 of 2007 Between: A. JayaRao S/. Paramanandama S.V. School for the Deaf, TTDs Warangal. ..... PET IT IONER AND The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Tirupati, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Executive Officer .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wirt of Mandmaus calling for the records relating to the issuance of Memo Roc No. DA1/22725/2006 dt. 10-11-2006 from the ﬁle of the Respondent and after perusing the same set aside the said Memo dt. 10-11-2006 by declaring it as arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to law and consequentlay direct the respondent to pay the diﬀerence of salary to the petitioners for the period from 10-11-2006 to till the date of his reinstatement into service and with all other attendant benefits, monetary or otherwise and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.SVENKATESWARA RAO(SC FOR TTD) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.27793 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order suspending the petitioner from service pending enquiry. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, though the impugned order was passed on 10.11.2006, till date, neither charge sheet was issued nor the enquiry oﬃcer was appointed. Even under the service rules governing the service conditions of petitioner, an employee can be placed under suspension only for a period of six months and it has to be reviewed thereafter and the maximum period could be two years. Whereas the learned counsel for respondents stated that the matter relates to misappropriation of certain funds and since intricate issues are involved and the audit department has ﬁled its report only in January 2008, no further action could be taken immediately. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to review the suspension order passed on 10.11.2006 and consider whether there is any necessity of keeping the petitioner under continued suspension any further. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 22.9.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.27793 of 2007 22.9.2008