IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4913 of 2009 Between: B. Reddeppa, S/o. Muruganna, Working in A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Badvel Urban, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Urdugally, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad - 29. 2 The District Collector/Executive Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Kadapa, Kadapa District 3 The District Manager, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Kadapa District .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in suspending the Petitioner without there being any complaint against the Petitioner and by giving no notice or opportunity vide Proc. No. B/214/2009 dated 16-1-2009, of the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and in violation of principles of natural justice, and consequently set aside the Proc. No. B/214/2009 dated 16-1-2009, passed by the 2nd respondent with all consequential benefits as otherwise Petitioner will suffer serious loss and great hardship and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHALLASIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.4913 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is working as a Technical Work Inspector in the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited. In this Writ Petition he has questioned the order dated 16-01-2009 passed in Proceedings No.B/214/2009, by which he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. From a perusal of the said order, it indicates that there is allegation against the petitioner that he cleared the bills to a tune of Rs.2,04,000/- in the Housing Scheme, though houses have not come up. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not responsible for payment of the bills and he is only a Technical Work Inspector. Further, it is submitted that against other responsible persons, who are responsible for payment of bills, no action has been taken. 3. Whether the petitioner is responsible or not for such mis- utilization of amount is a matter for enquiry. The impugned order is only a one for suspension pending enquiry. In view of the allegation leveled against the petitioner, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of suspension at this stage. In the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to direct the respondents to complete the enquiry expeditiously. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 13th March, 2009. skmr