IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WENESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9673 of 2008 Between: S.Yalamandha Reddy S/o.Late Chenchi Reddy (Now under orders of suspensions) A.P. Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Parisrama Bhavan Basheerbagh,Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The AP Industrial Development Corporation Limited Parisrama Bhavan,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director 2 The AP Industrial Development Corporation Limited Parisrama Bhavan,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, rep.by is Board ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the ﬁrst respondent in issuing proceedings C&MD/SYM/0259/2007 dated 22.9.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, and against the AP Industrial Development Corporation Staﬀ Rules and Regulations, 1960 and consequentially direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service as General Manager (M&R). Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.K.V.SIMHADRI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9673 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against the Proceedings issued by the 1st respondent in C&MD/SYM/0259/2007, dated 22-9-2007, whereunder the petitioner was suspended from service, pending investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The A.C.B. case was booked against the petitioner on the basis of disproportionate assets. In a case of disproportionate assets, insofar as the Department is concerned, they have nothing to do. It is for the A.C.B. to enquire into as to the value of the properties held by the petitioner and ﬁle a charge sheet etc. No further evidence needs to be collected nor there is any possibility of the petitioner tampering with such evidence. Now it is more than one year that the petitioner has been under suspension. Therefore, it is desirable that the respondents shall review as to keeping the petitioner under suspension any further or not. In the circumstances, respondents are directed to review as to whether there is any necessity of keeping the petitioner under continued suspension or not and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 24-9-2008 prk