THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 14500 OF 2010 O R D E R: The writ petitioner, who was working as a Divisional Manager of the State-owed New India Assurance Company Limited, the 1st respondent herein, is placed under suspension with effect from 11.01.2009 in terms of Rule 20(2) of the New India Assurance Company Limited (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 on the ground that he has been arrested by the police and he was remanded to judicial custody from 11.01.2009 in a criminal case booked under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that he remained in judicial custody till 23.01.2009. Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner strenuously submits that a false case has been foisted against the writ petitioner by the 3rd respondent Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation. The writ petitioner has maintained a clean record of service all through. In spite of his proven usefulness to the organization, he has been languishing having been kept under suspension. Though the order has been passed a little more than two years back, the same has not been reviewed and the writ petitioner has not been reinstated on the precious plea that the 3rd respondent Inspector has filed a charge sheet against the writ petitioner before the Special Court at Visakhapatnam. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the Special Court has to deal with a crowded docket there and consequently, trial of cases pending on its file are taking too long a period. Hence, the learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent should be directed to review the order passed on 15.01.2009 suspending the writ petitioner as more than six months’ period has elapsed and the 1st respondent can utilize his services by keeping him at a far off place instead of paying him substantial amount towards subsistence allowance without extracting any corresponding worth of work. Per contra, Sri V.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that until and unless the writ petitioner is cleared off the charge that is pending against him, it will not be in public interest to reinstate the writ petitioner. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the trial of cases though may be time consuming but it would sub-serve the public interest to await the judgment therein. Sri P. Kesava Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for CBI would submit that the prosecutor has done his bit by promptly filing the charge sheet before the competent criminal Court after quickly concluding the investigation into the matter. It is for the Special Court to speed up the trial and within the limited time available with it, it is striving to manage its docket. Rule 20 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the 1st respondent, undoubtedly, enables the 1st respondent to deal with its servants in the manner as contemplated therein. The writ petitioner therefore, has been rightly placed under suspension by the 1st respondent. It is always open to the 1st respondent, if approached together with the charge sheet, to re-examine the material that is gathered against the writ petitioner by the prosecutor and based thereon, take appropriate decision. It is certainly open to the 1st respondent to either reinstate or not to do so if it is satisfied that there is adequate material available against the writ petitioner to the prosecutor. However, the 1st respondent is liable to review the matter with regard to payment of quantum of subsistence allowance. Since the writ petitioner is not at fault for the delay in the conclusion of the criminal case launched against him, the 1st respondent ought to have appropriately raised the quantum of subsistence allowance payable to the writ petitioner. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue a direction to the 1st respondent herein to undertake the review and pass appropriate orders enhancing the quantum of subsistence allowance payable, if it is satisfied that the writ petitioner is no way guilty of delaying the trial into the criminal case and continue to pay the subsistence allowance month after month till such time either he is reinstated or would have attained, in the ordinary course, the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. The 3rd respondent Inspector will explore the possibility of impressing upon the Special Court to take up the trial of the criminal case on out of turn basis. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 19th January 2011 ksld