HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7234 OF 2010 ORDER: The 4th respondent is appointed as Field Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short ‘NREG Scheme’) for Nancharipet Village, Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District. He was placed under suspension by the 2nd respondent on certain allegations. Challenging the same, the 4th respondent filed W.P. No.26535 of 2009. The writ petition was disposed of leaving it open to the 4th respondent to avail the remedy of appeal before the Project Director, NREG Scheme, the 3rd respondent herein. The 4th respondent submitted his explanation and satisfied with that, the 2nd respondent reinstated the petitioner into service through order dated 08-01-2010. Petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of the Village, challenged the same. He contends that when this Court issued a specific direction that the 4th respondent should file an appeal, there was no justification for the 2nd respondent to reinstate the 4th respondent. 2. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the 2nd respondent and the 4th respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The 2nd respondent passed an order placing the 4th respondent under suspension. Initially, the 4th respondent approached this Court challenging the same, and thereafter, an appeal was preferred as indicated by this Court. Be that as it may, the explanation submitted by the 4th respondent appears to have weighed with the 2nd respondent. In addition to that, oral instructions are said to have been issued by the Projector Director, the appellate authority, himself. That ensued in reinstatement of the 4th respondent. 5. Had it been the case where the 4th respondent was dismissed from service, the appointing authority would not have been in a position to pass any orders, it is only for the appellate authority to examine the matter and pass appropriate orders. Suspension pending enquiry, however, stands on different footing. The disciplinary authority has always the right to reinstate the suspended employee. Therefore, at any rate, the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge those proceedings. 6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 14, 2010. Note: Issue CC in three days. B/O. KTL