THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6465 of 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been preferred by an Assistant Manager of Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, questioning the legality and validity of the orders passed by the District Collector-cum- Executive Director of the said Corporation on 08.03.2011, placing him under suspension pending enquiry into certain gross irregularities allegedly committed by him. The writ petitioner was working as an Assistant Manager in the office of the Project Director, Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, at Kadapa. Through the impugned order, he has been placed under suspension by the District Collector-cum-Executive Director of the said Corporation for the lapses/irregularities noticed by him. The District Collector found that the writ petitioner has detached the note file containing the observations made by the Additional Joint Collector of Kadapa District, which is an improper conduct on his part. The District Collector has also noticed that the writ petitioner has not submitted the replies to the omissions of the note file containing the observations made by the Additional Joint Collector of the District. The District Collector has also noticed that the writ petitioner has not given page numbers and para numbers to the note file and the current file, thus provided scope for their tampering. Above all, the District Collector found the writ petitioner to have misguided by submitting inaccurate information and files and records to the higher authorities. Hence, he passed the impugned order. Sri Challa Siva Shankar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would urge that the impugned order is essentially bad for two reasons. The first is that it has been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the writ petitioner has not been provided with an opportunity or notice before the impugned order is passed by the District Collector; and secondly, the writ petitioner is not the person responsible for the allegations or irregularities said to have been committed in the matter, but it is the other officers of the Corporation, who are responsible for such irregularities and no action has been proposed to be taken against them by the District Collector. I am afraid both these grounds lack tenability. Order of suspension itself is a preliminary step. It is only a step-in-aid for conducting a detailed enquiry against an employee. The service rules do provide for placing an employee under suspension. Therefore, before placing an employee under suspension, there is no necessity to put him on notice. In fact, placing an employee under suspension is resorted to by the competent authority to prevent any further access of such an employee to the official records and documents. Lest, they can suffer mutilation or tampering at the hands of such an employee. Further, unless an employee is placed under suspension, perhaps, he might be in a position to influence the witnesses, who are likely to speak against him, when the regular enquiry is undertaken. Therefore, no prior notice is required to be served on an employee before he is placed under suspension pending enquiry. If the service rules do not provide for placing an employee under suspension pending enquiry, he would only be entitled to demand for payment of full wages (See The Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers’ Union (AIR 1959 SC 1342)). Right to appoint an employee partakes with it right to terminate such an employee. Right of termination of employment enables the employer or the competent authority to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry. As to whether there is any other person responsible for the irregularities or not, is a pure question of fact. That cannot be addressed or determined by me in these proceedings. It is always open to the petitioner to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the competent authority that he is not responsible for the alleged irregularities and it is someone else. Therefore, I cannot pronounce as to whether the petitioner alone is responsible or someone else is responsible or the petitioner in the company of someone else is jointly responsible. These are the questions, which are liable to be addressed and answered in the course of enquiry that is to be conducted against the writ petitioner. Therefore, I do not see any valid or justifiable reason to entertain this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 15th March 2011 ksld