IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7383 of 2008 Between: Mr. B. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Sri B. Rami Reddy, R/o. Quarter No. C-16, Lecturers Quarters, Dravidian University Campus, Kuppam - 517 425. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Dravidian University, Srinivasavanam, Kuppam - 517 425, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Registrar. 2 Professor G. Laxminarayana, Vice Chancellor, Dravidian University, Srinivasavanam, Kuppam - 517 425, Chittoor 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 an order direction or Writ Particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, declaring the proceedings no. DU/Estt (e-2)BKR/2008 dated 25-3-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and biased and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: Mr. B. Parameswara Rao The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is an Associate Professor of Dravidian University, the 1st respondent herein. He was appointed as Head of the Department of Folklore and Tribal Studies. The 1st respondent issued a memo, dated 19.3.2008, directing him to explain as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken, in view of the letter, dated 17.3.2008, addressed by the petitioner. Through a letter, dated 24.3.2008, the petitioner requested time, up to 8.4.2008, for submission of the explanation. Vide proceedings dated 25.3.2008, the 2nd respondent, however, placed the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that while issuing the show-cause memo, the respondents did not feel the necessity of placing the petitioner under suspension, and the only development that has taken place subsequent to the show-cause memo, was the request made by the petitioner, to extend the time for submission of explanation. He contends that the order of suspension is unwarranted, in the facts and circumstances of the case. A small issue relating to the disinclination, on the part of the petitioner to continue as Head of the Department, has given rise to the present situation. Petitioner addressed a letter, dated 17.3.2008, casting certain aspersons against the 2nd respondent. Further, he demanded a written apology from the 2nd respondent. This obviously gave rise to issuance of show-cause memo. The subsequent letter dated 24.3.2008, addressed by the petitioner, added fuel to an existing volatile situation. This court is of the view that the impugned order does not warrant intervention, at this stage. It is better that the present passions cool down and dispassionate approach is made by the parties. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 4th April 2008 PAN