IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA W.A.No.805 OF 2010 Between: Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND L.V.V.S.Ramana Rao and another. ..... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA W.A.No.805 OF 2010 JUDGMENT (Per BPR,J): This appeal, at the instance of an institution, is directed against the interim order dated 07-10-2010 in W.V.M.P.No.4463 of 2010 in W.P.M.P.No.17103 of 2010, wherein the interim suspension dated 16- 06-2010 granted in favour of the 1st respondent in W.P.M.P.No.17103 of 2010, is made absolute. In the writ petition, the 1st respondent challenged the orders dated 06-11-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent suspending the 1st respondent herein and one Smt. M.Prasanna Kumari, Electrician, based on the allegation that both the employees involved in unethical and obsene activity in the board meeting hall on 06-11-2009. This Court, having granted interim suspension earlier on 16-06-2010, again after filing counter affidavit and also vacate stay petition by the appellant herein, made the interim orders dated 16-06- 2010 absolute on 07-10-2010. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant herein filed the present writ appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and at their consent, the main appeal itself is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner is an employee working in the appellant institution. On the allegation that he caught hold of the hand of his lady co-employee in a meeting, he was suspended. Challenging the same, the 1st respondent has filed a writ petition, wherein, this Court granted interim suspension. While so, the appellant institution conducted a preliminary enquiry which revealed that there is no evidence available directly to infer any thing against the 1st respondent. Further, the whole incident appears to be having regard to the coverage in media and even in the preliminary enquiry, no attempt appears to have been made to enquire about the concerned media or even to examine the staff who is in charge of the said coverage. 4. In view of the same and since the appeal is filed only against the interlocutory orders, and this Court did not go into the merits of the case in the writ petition, without expressing any opinion on merits, we are of the view that the order impugned does not warrant any interference by this Court. We do not find any merit in this appeal. 5. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, having regard to the nature of the proceedings dated 06-11-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent herein, we direct the office to post the main writ petition itself for final hearing on 22-11-2010, high up in the list, subject to part heard. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Date: 11th November 2010 ________________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA kvr