IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 28949 of 2008 Between: G.Srinivas, S/o.Venkateswarlu R/o.H.No.6-3-12/A, Jammibunda, Khammam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Superintending Engineer, Operation APNPDCL, Khammam. .....RESPONDENT 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in issuing Memo No.SE/O/KMM/PO/Adm/A4/D.No.836/2008 dated 29.08.2008, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and it is therefore violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in issuing Memo dated 29.8.2008 placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from 9.7.2008, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. The petitioner asserts that his wife was working in A.P. TRANSCO and during the course of her employment she died. After her death, on 6.12.2007, he married another woman, a widow, whose husband died while working in the Irrigation Department at Khammam. He and his 2nd wife were given appointments on compassionate grounds in the respective departments. On 7.7.2008, due to some disputes between them, the petitioner’s 2nd wife lodged a complaint against him before I Town Police Station, Khammam, alleging that he was having illegal intimacy with another woman, and he is harassing her physically and mentally. Based on that complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.128 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioner, arrested him on 9.7.2008 and released him on bail on 11.7.2008. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that the 1st respondent-Superintending Engineer, issued Memo dated 29.8.2008, suspending the petitioner from service with effect from 9.7.2008 on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a false case was foisted against the petitioner by his estranged 2nd wife, in connection with which, he was arrested and released on bail later. The investigation of the case is still pending. However, the respondent, without applying his mind and without considering the public interest that is involved, has placed him under suspension, which is illegal and arbitrary. He has submitted that while suspending an employee, what would be the public interest that is involved has to be considered, and without considering this aspect, he was placed under suspension. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in P. Rajender Vs. Union of India[1]. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. So far as the criminal case is concerned, investigation is not yet completed and charge sheet is not filed. Suspension of the petitioner pending investigation, inquiry or trial is interim in nature. The Division Bench of this Court in P.Rajender Vs. Union of India (supra) while considering the parameters of placing an employee under suspension, has held that before passing an order of suspension, the appropriate authority shall take into consideration not only the public interest but also the relevant facts and attendant circumstances and decide whether it is necessary to keep the employee under suspension or not. The authority should also consider whether reinstating the petitioner into service while the criminal proceedings are going on would in any manner affect his day to day functioning. The main case of the petitioner is that after the marriage of the petitioner with the second wife, she started creating ugly scenes for each and every petty issue and creating nuisance before the neighbours, and in spite of his best efforts to mend her manners, she did not change her attitude, and suddenly she disappeared from the house and lodged a complaint. Whether the petitioner had in fact indulged in the offence of harassing his wife and whether it would have any impact on his continuing to work in the organization despite the fact that investigation is in progress are relevant factors to be taken into consideration by the authority. Admittedly, the respondent, without considering these aspects, has placed him under suspension on the ground that he is involved in a criminal case. The impugned order does not disclose that any of the above factors were considered while placing the petitioner under suspension. The impugned order suffers totally from non-application of mind inasmuch as it was passed without indicating as to at what stage the investigation or inquiry or trial of the case is, and how its pendency would affect the petitioner in discharging his duties in the department. The application of mind on the part of the competent authority is sine qua non for passing an order of suspension. The order only reveals that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case for harassing his wife and detained in police custody from 9.7.2008 to 11.7.2008. Inasmuch as the authorities before passing the impugned suspension order, have not taken into consideration the relevant facts and attendants circumstances as also the public interest that would be affected in his continuance in the department, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for revocation of the suspension order passed taking into consideration the parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in P.Rajender Vs. Union of India (supra) as also in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 31st December, 2008 bcj [1] (2001) 5 ALD 290