HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA W.P. No. 24226 of 2010 DATED: 28.09.2010 Between: K. Mallikarjuna …. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of A.P. 2. The Commissioner & Director of Agriculture 3. The Joint Director of Agriculture 4. A.P. Administrative Tribunal …. Respondents O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri P Gangaiah Niadu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the 4th respondent, and at their request, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The main grievance of the petitioner-Mandal Agriculture Officer, is that though he is regularly inspecting the retail shops of dealers of fertilizers in the division of Ananthapur, and instructing them to rectify their mistakes if any, the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, without application of mind, issued Proceedings dated 17.09.2010 placing him under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner submits that he filed O.A. No.6388 of 2010 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking to quash the impugned proceedings along with an application to suspend the operation of the proceedings, and the same are pending consideration. Now, the writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record, and having considered several other aspects which also involve the order impugned in this writ petition, we feel it necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the proceedings, which is extracted hereunder: “Whereas, it has come to the notice of the undersigned, who is the competent authority (appointing authority / disciplinary authority) alleging that Sri K. Mallikarjuna, M.A.O., Anantapur has failed to implement the provisions of F.C.O., 1985 and E.C. Act, 1955 and slack supervision in the movement of Fertilisers, which resulted in the manipulation of movement of fertilizers by the wholesale dealers and representatives of fertilizer companies. …………… Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers, conferred by Sub- Rule(1) of Rule 8 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, the undersigned (Appointing authority) and disciplinary authority, hereby placed the Sri K.Mallikarjuna, M.A.O., Anantapur under suspension in public interest from the date of communication of this order, and he shall continue to be under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.” A careful perusal of the above proceedings would reveal that no specific allegations of any involvement are made against the petitioner except a mere mention of non-implementation of the provisions of F.C.O., 1985 and slack supervision in the movement of Fertilisers. The entire proceedings apparently speak only against non-implementation of the law, which itself cannot be examined prima facie as a ground for taking recourse to such serious action of placing an employee under suspension. Hence, without going into merits of the case or correctness of the impugned proceedings, and having regard to the fact that the main matter is pending consideration before the Tribunal, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i) There shall be ad-interim suspension of the impugned proceedings No.Vig.IV(2)211/2010, dated 17.09.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, until further orders. ii) The respondents shall file counter affidavit before the Tribunal and contest both the application seeking suspension of the impugned proceedings and also the main case in O.A. No.6388 of 2010. iii) On such counter affidavit being filed, the Tribunal shall consider the application seeking suspension of the impugned proceedings and the main case, and dispose of them by passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No order as to costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J 28-09-2010 _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J bcj