IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3015 of 2009 Between: Dr. B. Govinda Narayana S/o. B. Nazaraiah Sri Venkateshwara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director, Sri Venkateshwara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for Respondent No.1: MRS. P.SARADA Counsel for Respondent No.2:AGP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 23.10.2008 passed by respondent No.1 whereby the petitioner was kept under suspension pending enquiry into serious charges. At the hearing, Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to raise issues touching the merits of the allegations. As the order impugned is in the nature of interim suspension pending enquiry, which, according to the settled legal position, does not constitute punishment, I have not felt inclined to pronounce upon the merits of these contentions. Smt.P.Sarada, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that a charge sheet has already been issued in the month of January, 2009 and that the petitioner is not cooperating in the enquiry by not attending the same at least on two occasions. A perusal of the impugned order by which the petitioner is placed under suspension shows that the petitioner is facing serious charges of collecting illegal monies/gratifications for giving jobs on contract basis. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. However, since a charge sheet has already been filed, respondent No.1 is directed to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that the petitioner will cooperate with the enquiry. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had given representation, dated 23.02.2009 requesting the disciplinary authority to supply certain documents. The disciplinary authority shall do well to comply with the request of the petitioner subject to the relevancy of the documents. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.3865 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 8th APRIL, 2009. kvni