THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1647 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Work Inspector in A.P. Housing State Corporation, respondent No.2 herein, in the year 1986. Recently, he was entrusted with the duties of implementation of ‘Indiramma Phase II Housing Programme’ in Mominpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Through an order, dated 23.01.2009, the District Collector/Executive Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Ranga Reddy District, respondent No.3 herein, placed the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is vague and without any specific allegations and he was placed under suspension by making allegations in respect of the functions entrusted to other officials. Reference is made to G.O.Rt.No.107, Housing (U&IAY) Department issued in the year 2007. The respondents filed counter-affidavit stating inter alia that the allegations against the petitioner are grave in nature and the suspension was ordered in public interest. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The Government launched certain schemes with great enthusiasm, but without ensuring proper basis for implementation thereof. Every arrangement was made on ad hoc basis and to enable huge flow of public funds. The launching itself is so defective that G.O.Rt.No.107, which stipulates guidelines of the scheme, does not even contain the date. The arrangements either for identifying the beneficiaries or for release of funds and construction material are as vague as they could be and hardly there exists any point at which the responsibility can be fixed. The petitioner is a Work Inspector whose duty, according to the G.O.Rt., is to make documentation and upkeep all the beneficiary-wise records and registers. Be that as it may, the order of suspension does not make reference to any specific allegation. At any rate, it is stated that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are at final stage. This Court suspended the impugned order, while admitting the writ petition. The same arrangement can be continued till the enquiry against the petitioner is concluded. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry and take appropriate action depending on the outcome thereof. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:15.07.2010 kdl