THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26632 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is an Executive Engineer in the A.P. Fisheries Corporation. He is in the office of the Commissioner of Fisheries, the 2nd respondent, on deputation. The matter pertaining to his repatriation is pending before the Supreme Court. The Anti Corruption Bureau of the State registered a case against the petitioner, on finding that he possessed assets disproportionate to his known source of income and he was arrested on 14.12.2007. That gave rise to the suspension of the petitioner through orders in G.O.Ms.No.122, dated 17.12.2008. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008, directing that whenever an employee is placed under suspension on the ground that cases were registered by the A.C.B., the appointing authority must review the order of suspension from time to time. It was also directed that in case the appointing authority intends to continue the suspension beyond two years, the reasons therefor must be recorded. The petitioner filed W.P.No.15187 of 2011 before this Court, complaining that the respondents have not extended the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008. The writ petition was disposed of on 08.06.2011, directing that the 1st respondent shall take a decision on the representation made by the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.371, dated 17.08.2011, taking the view that the petitioner be continued under suspension, until further orders. The request of the petitioner for enhancement of the subsistence allowance beyond 50% was rejected. Hence, this writ petition. Heard Sri Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries. The petitioner was placed under suspension in December, 2008, on the ground that he was arrested by the ACB, on the allegation that he possessed assets exceeding his known source of income. The progress for case of this nature is a bit slow. In many cases, it may not be desirable to continue the employees under suspension indefinitely, particularly when no departmental proceedings are initiated. The continued suspension of employees, on the sole ground that they were in the judicial custody would result in, not only shortage of the personnel, but also the payment of substantial amount towards subsistence allowance without extracting work. Obviously, to overcome the situations of this nature, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 19.08.2008, providing for review of cases, where an employee is under suspension for a period exceeding two years, on the basis of registration of cases by police, but the discretion is given to the appointing/disciplinary authority. An obligation is created upon them to record reasons, in case they choose to continue the suspension beyond two years. In the instant case, there was no such review by the respondents. On a direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.15187 of 2011 filed by the petitioner, the matter was reviewed. The 1st respondent took the view that the petitioner deserves to be continued under suspension. Reasons are also stated as to why the subsistence allowance need not be enhanced. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the reasons mentioned by an appointing authority to continue an employee under suspension. Much would depend upon the gravity of the allegations and the detriment, which the department would suffer, in case the employee is reinstated pending finalization of the proceedings. Ultimately, it is for the concerned authority to form an opinion. Unless it is alleged and proved that a decision taken in this regard is mala fide or patently illegal, there would not be any occasion to interfere. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner is attaining the age of superannuation in April, 2012 and serious prejudice would be caused to him, if he is to retire, while under suspension. This Court is of the view that there must be substantial progress in the criminal case itself, and even if it is still pending, the case of the petitioner can be reviewed in January, 2012. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the 1st respondent shall make a further review of the matter in January, 2012 duly taking into account the situation that may obtain at that point of time. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:23.09.2011. GJ