IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6581 of 2008 Between: P.V.Ramanaiah S/o.China Nagaiah Social Welfare Engineering Wing, In the office of Executive Engineer, Social Welfare, Pragathi Bhavan, Ongole Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of AP., Social Welfare Department,rep.by its Secretary, Secretariat Buildings,AP Hyderabad 2 The Govt of AP., Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Rep.by its Principal Secretary , AP., Hyderabad 3 AP Schedule caste Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd., rep.by its V.C. & Managing Director, Hyderabad 4 The District Collector, & Chairman,PDSCCS ltd Ongole,Prakasam District 5 The Executive Engineer, Social Welfare Engineering Wing, Pragathi bhavan, Ongole, Prakasam District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ order or direction more in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the impugned in Proceedings Lr.No.A2/3716/26/APSC /03 dated 16.5.2007 of the 3rd respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension not releasing the substance allowance during the suspension period and also the action of the 1st respondent not passing any order in the appeal filed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Articles, 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequentially to set aside the suspension order with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANANDA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6581 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner challenges an order, dated 16.05.2007, passed by the 3rd respondent, through which he was placed under suspension, pending enquiry into the charge, and an enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner complains that the very charge mentioned in the order of suspension is baseless and the subject matter of the charge was closed way back in the year 2004. It is also urged that the respondents are not paying any subsistence allowance, ever since the petitioner was placed under suspension. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondents 1,4 and 5, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3, on the other hand, submit that the petitioner filed W.P.No.12669 of 2007 challenging the very impugned order and that the same was dismissed. Reference is also made to W.A.No.744 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner, which too was dismissed. It is matter of record that the petitioner filed W.P.No.12669 of 2007 challenging the order, dated 16.05.2007, which is assailed in this writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed. It is no doubt true that in W.A.No.744 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court permitted the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order of suspension. The mere fact that the appeal said to have been preferred by the petitioner was not disposed of, hardly constitutes a fresh cause of action for him to file the present writ petition. On this short ground, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the 3rd respondent cannot avoid its liability to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. If the petitioner was not paid the subsistence allowance, it may tell upon the legality of the entire process. Further, the learned Single of this Court while dismissing W.P.No.12669 of 2007 directed that the disciplinary proceedings be concluded within four months. Even that period had elapsed. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with a direction that the 3rd respondent shall pay the arrears of subsistence allowance to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from today and continue to pay the same from month to month. The disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 27.03.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6581 of 2008 Date: 27.03.2008 JSU