HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.2424 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed against the common order, dated 07-12-2010, in O.A. No.6841 of 2010 (along with O.A. No.6789 of 2010 and batch), passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners are directed to reinstate the 1st respondent within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the 1st respondent is working as Hostel Welfare Officer Gr.II at Government Social Welfare Boys Ananda Nilayam, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. He was placed under suspension vide proceedings Rc.No.A1/357/2009, dated 28-09-2010- 8, passed by the 3rd respondent on the ground of mis-conduct on the basis of the Vigilance Report dated 29-12-2008. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent filed O.A. No.6841 of 2010. The petitioners filed a counter – affidavit in the said O.A. stating that a surprise check was conducted by the officials of the Vigilance & Enforcement Department along with the Deputy Tahasildar, CS, and Food Inspector, Kanigiri on M/s.Srinivasa Rice & Flour Mill at about 12-30 PM on 24-08-2008 and it was found that some labour were transferring the rice from FCI branded bags to other bags branded as Annapurna. On physical verification, it was revealed that the said rice is PDS rice and that the incharge MLS point has released excess quantity of rice, which was allotted to 10 Social Welfare Hostels and diverted 112.5 quintals of rice to black market through a Stage-II Contractor. Out of 112.5quintials of rice diverted, it was found that 12 quintals of rice relates to the Government Social Welfare Ananda Nilayam for Boys, Kanigiri, in which the 1st respondent is working as Hostel Welfare Officer. After due enquiry into the matter, the Vigilance Department recommended suspension of certain officials, including the 1st respondent, who are involved in the diversion of rice meant for Social Welfare Hostels. 3. The Tribunal, after hearing both the parties and after considering the material available on record, through the impugned order, set aside the order of suspension dated 28-09-2010 – 8 and directed the petitioners to reinstate the 1st respondent within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services – III and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Services – III submits that the 1st respondent was involved in gross mis-conduct of diverting the rice meant for the Social Welfare Hostel to black market and that he made wrong entries in the Stock & Issue Register. He further submits that the report of the Vigilance Department clearly shows the fraud played by the 1st respondent and as such, the 1st respondent was placed under suspension pending enquiry. He vehemently contends that the Tribunal ought not to have set aside the said order of suspension and that it exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the said suspension order. 7. We see some force in the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader for Services – III. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was placed under suspension, pending enquiry, on the ground of mis- conduct, based upon the report submitted by the Vigilance Department. The Tribunal cannot go into the merits of the allegations against the 1st respondent, inasmuch as the disciplinary proceedings are pending and it is for the disciplinary authority to enquire into the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal, considering the nature of allegations, instead of setting aside the order of suspension, ought to have directed the petitioners to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated period. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby quash the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in respect of the applicant in O.A. No.6841 of 2010 is concerned and the petitioners are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, they shall reinstate the 1st respondent into service. 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J February 08, 2011. __________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J KTL