HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITON No.25726 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Technical Assistant in the Society for Rural Development Services for Aspari Mandal of Kurnool District. The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, the 2nd respondent herein, issued a show cause notice, dated 23-04-2011, alleging that the petitioner committed irregularities in the context of recording works pertaining to ploughing of lands of the farmers under the Scheme. On receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation on 09-05-2011. Preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Mandal Parishat Development Officer, the 3rd respondent herein. Through report, dated 10-05-2011, the 3rd respondent took the view that there are no irregularities or lapses on the part of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 18-07-2011, placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1 and 2, and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3. Suspension pending enquiry is ordered whenever the appointing authority notices lapses on the part of the employee. That is resorted to either while issuing a show cause notice or before that. The intention is to prevent the employee from interfering with the investigation or the enquiry. 4. In the instant case, the show cause notice was issued on 23-04-2011 and the petitioner submitted his explanation on 09-05- 2011. On the next day itself, the 3rd respondent submitted a report virtually exonerating the petitioner from the charges. However, the final order has to be passed by the 2nd respondent. 5. Almost two months after the 3rd respondent submitted the report, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order. Except stating that the enquiry is contemplated, no other reason is stated. The impugned order runs contrary to the settled principles of law. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the 2nd respondent to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J September 14, 2011. KTL