THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO WP NO.26612 OF 2009 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J ) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of certiorari calling for the records in OA No.7846 of 2009, dated 10-8-2009 and to declare to the same as being erroneous, illegal and to quash the same. The respondent-Superintending Engineer, RWS & Sanitation, Kurnool District, in the OA is the writ petitioner herein. The applicant-respondent herein filed the said OA challenging his order of suspension dated 26-12-2008 and the proceedings dated 26-6-2009 extending his suspension period and to set aside the same and for a consequential direction to the authorities to reinstate him into service. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned order set aside the order placing the applicant under suspension and the consequent proceedings dated 26-6-2009 continuing him under suspension and directed the authorities to re-instate him into service. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Service-II and the learned counsel for the respondent-applicant. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. As noticed from the facts of the case, a case was registered on 22-12-2008 against the applicant by the ACB authorities Kurnool Range, on credible information that he while working as Work Inspector, RWS & Sanitation Sub-division Kurnool has acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income by means of corrupt practices. It is sated that the during the searches, total assets worth Rs.68,32,918/- was found in his possession. Thereafter the applicant was placed under suspension by the proceedings noted above and departmental enquiry was ordered against him. As the enquiry could not be completed, the suspension period was further expended by proceedings dated 26-6- 2009. The Government in respect of review of orders of suspension against government servants, issued guidelines in GO Ms.No.86, G.A.D., dated 8-3-1994. Under clause (iii) of the said GO, fixed an outer limit as two years, where a government servant can be continued under suspension. It has also provided an exception that in exceptional cases, one could be continued under suspension even beyond a period of two years. The relevant clause (iii) of the said GO reads thus:- “(iii) An outer limit be provided as two years from the date of suspension, failing which the public servant may have to be reinstated without prejudice to the proceedings being pursued. However, in exceptional cases, considering the gravity of the charges, one could be continued under suspension even beyond a period of two years, especially in cases where there is deliberate delay caused due to non- co-operation of the employee concerned.” 5. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Tribunal exceeded in its jurisdiction in directing the authorities to re-instate the applicant into service without leaving discretion to the reviewing authority whether to continue the applicant on suspension or not having regard to the nature of charges. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed. However, the applicant- respondent herein is permitted to make a representation to the appropriate authority seeking review of his suspension within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order and on such a representation being filed by the applicant, the authorities to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law. The writ petitioner is disposed of subject to the above directions. No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ N.R.L. Nageswara Rao,J Dated 21-2-2011 Nrg.