IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15232 of 2005 Between: Sri B. Muneendrudu, Army (Retd.), S/o. Sri B. Balaramaiah R/o. 592. 'D' Type, Vinayak Nagar Quarters, Tirupathi Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2. The Joint Executive Officer O/o. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3. The Chief Vigilance & Security Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4. The Temple Inspector, Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Karvetinagaram Tirupathi, 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 may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings Roc.No.DA2/15272/2005, dt.22.06.2005, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents to Re-instate the petitioner into service with all benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ARCOTSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.SEETARAM REDDY The Court at the admissions stage made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order of suspension, dated 22.06.2005, pending enquiry. According to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed by second respondent with a malafide intention though there is nothing in the alleged complaint. In fact, there is no reference in the impugned order to any of the complaints alleged to have been made. Further, the impugned order does not provide for payment of any subsistence allowance and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that as the petitioner has already been transferred from the temple where he allegedly misbehaved, he cannot interfere with the enquiry. It is therefore contended that it is not proper and just to place the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry. The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in Prof.V.Nageswar Rao v Osmania University and also G.O.Ms.No.41l, Genl.Admn.(Ser.C) Department, dated 20.07.1993 in support of his contention that the impugned order of suspension is not sustainable. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The impugned order of suspension is passed by the second respondent stating that the petitioner abused the ‘Archakas’ of the temple and also took the office records to outside for getting photostat copies with a motive to misuse the same for his personal gain. The petitioner disputes the above allegations and contends that there is nothing in those allegations and further as he has already been transferred to another temple, there is no need to suspend him, pending enquiry. As there are allegations of mis-behaviour with the ‘Archakas’ of the temple, the second respondent, the Joint Executive Officer, who is the competent authority, passed orders suspending the petitioner pending enquiry. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not deserve consideration at this stage as the enquiry is yet to be commenced and completed. However, as it is stated that the impugned order does not provide for payment of any subsistence allowance, the second respondent is directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner as long as he is kept under suspension, pending enquiry. The second respondent is further directed to expedite the enquiry. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. __________________ 14.07.2005 VGB To 1. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2. The Joint Executive Officer O/o. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3. The Chief Vigilance & Security Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4. The Temple Inspector, Sri Venugopala Swamy Temple, Karvetinagaram Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 5. 2CD copies.