THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.12123 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari assailing the order, dated 26.05.2010, passed in O.A.No.3234 of 2010 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as Sub-Inspector, I.Polavaram Police Station of East Godavari District, was placed under suspension vide order, dated 14.05.2010, passed by the first respondent, on the ground that when he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, West Godavari District, he indulged in corrupt practices, crime burking and connivance with accused of fake currency in Crime No.135 of 2010 of Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, and thereby exhibited gross misconduct on duty. Questioning the order of suspension, he filed O.A.No.3234 of 2010 before the Tribunal, which in turn disposed of the same directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, failing which, the respondents shall re-induct the petitioner into service by posting him to some other place other than the place where the incident has taken place. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner for registering the complaint, which was filed after 11 months of the incident. He further submitted that as the petitioner is in the verge of promotion, if his suspension is not revoked, he deprived the right of promotion. 5. Rule 8 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’) reads as under: “Suspension: (1) A member of a service may be placed under suspension from service- (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) Where in the opinion of the authority competent to place the Government servant under suspension, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the state, or (c) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. (d) A member of a service may be placed under suspension from service even if the offence for which he was charged does not have bearing on the discharge of his official duties. Rule 8(b) of the Rules clearly postulates that when a Government servant has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State, the authority competent has to place him under suspension. As serious allegations are made against the petitioner, the first respondent placed him under suspension pending enquiry. 6. It is a settled proposition of law that this Court while exercising judicial review with regard to suspension pending enquiry cannot go into detail with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner and it is for the disciplinary authority to go into the factual aspects of the matter. Inasmuch as the suspension pending enquiry is not a punishment and the Tribunal has directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said order, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 7. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:01.06.2010. sj