IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.19304 OF 2011 BETWEEN: Smt. T. Prabhavathi W/o. B.V. Subba Reddy. …. Petitioner AND S.V. Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Rep. by its Director and another. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.19304 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records related to and connected with the orders passed by the 1st respondent – S.V. Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupathi through its Director in Memo Roc.No.C2/20/SVIMS/2010, dated 29-06-2011, and set aside the same. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be stated as follows. The petitioner was appointed as Head Nurse in the year 1993 in the 1st respondent – S.V. Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupathi, and later promoted as Nursing Superintendent Gr.II and Gr.I and presently working as Assistant Director (Nursing Department) since 12-06-2009. The petitioner’s husband suddenly fell ill and was admitted in Cancer Institution on 12-03-2007 as he was suffering with “Multiple Myeloma”. The petitioner applied for sanction of medical bills to the 1st respondent duly enclosing the original bills of the cancer Institute, Chennai, as her husband was dependent on her and she was not in a position to meet the medical expenses. After submitting the dependent certificate, the 1st respondent sanctioned an amount of Rs.4,53,025/- towards medical expenses. The husband of the petitioner has no other source of income. During the year 2008, while the husband of the petitioner was in the hospital, a house was constructed in his name in the vacant plot owned by him by getting bank loan and it was let out in March 2008. After December 2007, no claim was made by the petitioner with regard to medical expenses, as her husband was getting the rents. When the things stood thus, the 1st respondent issued charge memo, dated 09-03-2011, to the petitioner on the allegation that the dependant certificate produced by her is a fake document. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 16-03-2011 within the stipulated time, denying the charges levelled against her. Thereafter, the 1st respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and the enquiry is pending. Surprisingly, the 1st respondent has lodged a complaint against the petitioner in Alipiri Police Station on 16-04-2011, alleging that the petitioner cheated the Government. The petitioner approached the competent Court for anticipatory bail but, was not succeeded, then she approached the Hon’ble High Court and got the anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued the impugned order, dated 29-06-2011, keeping the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Department had already framed the charges and an Enquiry Officer was also appointed and during the pedency of the enquiry, the impugned order is passed, that after lapse of a period of 4 or 5 years with a view to take vengeance against the petitioner and in the Criminal case, the prosecution had withdrawn the memo filed by it for sending the disputed document to the expert, therefore, it is not a question of misconduct. 4. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the suspension pending enquiry or contemplation enquiry when the charges are serious in nature. The Disciplinary Authority is entitled to suspend an employee. The charges levelled against the petitioner are that though her husband is not dependent and he is getting more than Rs.30,000/- per month towards rents, she has shown him as dependent and has withdrawn a sum of Rs.4,53,025/- towards medical expenses incurred for her husband and produced a false dependency certificate. Serious charges are levelled against the petitioner as seen from the articles of charges. Further, the police of Alipiri Police Station also registered a criminal case under Sections 408, 420, 468 and 471 IPC against the petitioner. In view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, it is not a fit case to interfere with the order of suspension, considering the fact that there is a progress in the departmental enquiry. 5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, considering the fact that the Enquiry Officer was already appointed, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry within a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J July 11, 2011. KTL