THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 33581 of 2010 DATE: 14-06-2011 Between: P.V.Ramanaiah .. Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Power General Corporation Limited, rep. by its Chairman, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 33581 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the impugned Memo No.CGM(Adm)/DS/(Adm)/AS (V&R) (T)/PO-B/VC-1894/2009 dated 11.12.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground that he was under detention for more than 48 hours in connection with Crime No.22 of 2009 on the file of Anti- Corruption Bureau, Nellore for possessing disproportionate assets to the known sources of income, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the various G.Os/Regulations and consequently set aside the same. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The officials of Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore have conducted raid on 01.12.2009 at the petitioner’s residential house, departmental residential quarter and his in-laws house, administrative block at RTTP and his native place i.e. Kattava village and registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2009 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation of disproportionate of assets and he was arrested in the said case and produced before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore on 02.12.2009 and was remanded upto 16.12.2009. Later he was released on bail. Thereafter the 2nd respondent issued the impugned Memo No.CGM(Adm)/DS/(Adm)/AS (V&R) (T)/PO-B/VC-1894/2009 dated 11.12.2009 placing him under suspension on the ground of detention for more than forty eight hours. It is stated that as per F.I.R., during raid by ACB officials at five places simultaneously, there were no recoveries at two places and in other three places it was alleged that he is the owner of 12 items valued at Rs.1,10,93,200/- and shown the disproportionate assets of Rs.82,84,200/-. In fact there is no disproportionate assets involved and the ACB officials have included the assets of his wife and shown high side value only for their statistical purpose and they have not considered the rents on houses and income from agricultural lands and if they are taken into consideration he is not in possession of disproportionate assets. He further states that the Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned in several cases to consider the income of wife as well as money belonging to her, but the ACB officials have included the assets of his wife in the list of disproportionate assets. He further states that he never indulged in any sort of illegality or irregularity in discharge of his duties but for no fault of his the respondent authorities kept him under suspension on the ground of detention for more than 48 hours. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit contending that the Chief Engineer/O&M/RTPP/Kalamala in his letter dated 04.12.2009 informed that raids were conducted on 01.12.2009 by the officials of ACB, Nellore on the premises of the petitioner including his residential quarters No.33, ‘C’ type and a criminal case was registered vide Cr.No.22/RCA- NLR/2009 of ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore District for disproportionate assets and he was produced before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore on 02.12.2009 at 15.40 hours and remanded upto 16.12.2009. Bail petition filed by the petitioner was posted on 04.12.2009 for hearing and he was sent to Central Prison, Nellore at 17.15 hours on 02.12.2009 and his detention is more than 48 hours. Therefore, the Chairman, APGENCO, being the competent authority, has ordered that the petitioner is deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 02.12.2009 for his involvement in the above case, under Regulation 11(b) of APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations, as adopted by APGENCO, pending finalization of criminal proceedings against him until further orders and he was paid subsistence allowance as per Regulation 56 of APSEB Service Regulations Part-I, as adopted by APGENCO. It is further stated that the contention of petitioner in including the assets of his wife and showing high side value is wrong. As per Regulation 5 of APSEB Revised Conduct, every employee has to intimate the movable and immovable property acquired during the year on his name or in the name of any member of his family duly intimating the source of income. Therefore, the assets acquired by his wife also should be taken into account and the petitioner never intimated the movable and immovable properties acquired in his name or his wife’s name. His contention that his wife acquired 3 sites with old construction at Tada, Nellore District in the year 2000-2001 and undertaken construction of ground floor in 2002-2003, first floor in 2003-2004 and also other floors in 2008-2009, but at no point of time he has stated that he is receiving rents on houses and income from agricultural lands. The ACB officials have taken into consideration of all assets and income of his wife also in the list of disproportionate assets. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not initiated disciplinary proceedings and solely on the ground that he was detained in the judicial custody for more than 48 hours, he was suspended and for another six months the suspension of the petitioner has to be reviewed and, therefore, she prays to set aside the same. She also contended that as on today the police have not filed the charge sheet. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for APGENCO contended that since the ACB case is pending against him, the case of the petitioner initiated in the year 2010 and there is no reason to revoke suspension and, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. Admittedly, there is a provision under Rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner that an employee can be placed under suspension when he was detained in the judicial custody for more than 48 hours. The Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2009 for having the income disproportionate to the known source and set the criminal law into motion. Though, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that as on today no charge sheet is filed, no material is filed to show that the officials of Anti-Corruption Bureau have not filed the charge sheet. Similarly, the affidavit filed in support of the petition does not contain the factum of not filing the charge sheet before the competent criminal Court. As per the Rules, in a disproportionate assets case, the competent authority has to review the suspension order periodically. As seen from the proceedings of the competent authority, in the year 2010, considering his case, rejected for revocation of suspension. As per the Rules governing the service conditions with reference to the disproportionate assets case, an employee can be suspended even beyond the period of two years, but at the same time the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for continuation of the suspension beyond two years. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take appropriate decision to continue the petitioner under suspension or not, in regard to the Rules and Regulations governing the service conditions of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ K.C.BHANU, J 14-06-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 33581 of 2010 DATE: 14-06-2011 MR