THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5148 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Principal of one of the educational institutions run and managed by the 2nd respondent society, questioning the validity of the orders passed on 31.12.2010 by the 1st respondent District Collector, Srikakulam, placing him under suspension. The District Collector, I must say, has reacted very sharply as the writ petitioner as a Principal of the educational institution at Kollivalasa has not taken adequate care of a sick child studying 7th class in his institution, which ultimately lead to his death subsequently. Therefore, the District Collector passed orders on 31.12.2010 placing the writ petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into his culpability in the matter. The District Collector has also taken care of asking the Additional Joint Collector, Srikakulam to undertake a formal enquiry into the matter. The Additional Joint Collector has filed his report comprising several suggestions and findings, on 29.12.2010. Based thereon, the impugned order has been passed. However much it might be unfortunate that the writ petitioner being a responsible Principal of a residential educational institution may have been guilty of not bestowing adequate attention and care towards a sick child, but however, the District Collector has not been conferred any power for placing a Principal under suspension. The Regulations framed by the Society confer such power only upon the Secretary of the said institution. Therefore, the District Collector sought for ratification and the Secretary of the society through her orders dated 18.01.2011, ratified the action of the Collector in placing the writ petitioner under suspension. Ratifying an order passed by another agency or officer is not the same as passing an order by the competent authority himself or herself. It is rather unfortunate that a serious view of the fact situation has not been taken into consideration by the Secretary of the Society, instead, ratification of the Collector’s orders have been ordered. Only on the ground that the District Collector does not have the power or jurisdiction, the impugned order passed on 31.12.2010 by him deserves to be set at naught. However, it shall not come in the way of the 2nd respondent society to independently apply its mind as to whether the facts and circumstances leading up to the death of the student under the custody and control of the writ petitioner herein, deserve to be taken serious note of and appropriate disciplinary action to be initiated against him and as to whether it is also necessary to place the writ petitioner under suspension pending such a disciplinary enquiry. Be that as it may, it is further clarified that for initiation of disciplinary proceedings, an employee need not necessarily be confined to suspension pending such enquiry. Placing an employee under suspension, it is well-recognized, is only a step-in-aid for conducting the enquiry. The disciplinary enquiry is altogether an independent exercise. Only when it is suspected that the employee might influence the witnesses if he was allowed to continue in office or might tamper with the record, suspension pending enquiry is generally resorted to. Enlightened managers recognize that placing of an employee under suspension, pending enquiry, which might be a time consuming affair, and hence, it may not be very useful or productive. During the period of suspension, such an employee will be paid subsistence allowance at the rate of either 50% of his wages or if the period of suspension is for a longer tenure, at the rate of 75% of the wages. However, correspondingly no work can be extracted from such an employee. Therefore, it will cause a strain on the precious financial resources of the institution, apart from requiring man power substitution. Instead, transferring such an employee to a far off place from the place where the incident had occasioned will well serve the purpose. Let the 2nd respondent society take a decision in this regard. In matters of this grave nature, if the District Collector concerned does not react, the public administration itself will be viewed with suspicion by the citizens. Placing an employee under suspension might be an immediate necessity sometimes, particularly to prevent access to the official record to such an employee. Hence, it is time the 2nd respondent society should consider it appropriate to suitably amend their regulations conferring such a power on the District Collectors also while retaining the said power in the hands of the Secretary of the society. Let an appropriate decision in the matter be taken at the earliest, at any rate within the next 30 days and communicate the same to the writ petitioner. In view of setting aside the order of suspension, dated 31.12.2010, the petitioner would only be entitled to be paid his full salary and allowances. Until and unless the 2nd respondent takes a decision in the matter, he will not be entitled to resume or join duty. With this, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 8th March 2011 ksld