THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.4949 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 24.09.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing O.A.No.8928 of 2009 filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside his suspension proceedings, dated 14.07.2009, issued by the third respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while working as Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Pinapaka, Khammam District, was placed under suspension pending enquiry, by the third respondent vide proceedings, dated 14.07.2009, based on the reports of the Social Audit and the Quality Control and Vigilance Cell that he committed certain irregularities in his tenure by misappropriating huge funds of Employment Guarantee Scheme and delayed in payment of wages to the labour. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the above said O.A. before the Tribunal, which in turn dismissed the same on 24.09.2009. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondents have selectively suspended the petitioner leaving the other employees, who are actually involved in misuse of EGS funds, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in K. SUKHENDAR REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1], wherein it was held as under: “Another vital fact which has come on record is that in the criminal case a number of senior IAS Officers, even senior to the appellant, may be found involved, but nothing positive or definite can be said as yet as the investigation is likely to take time. The matter is pending with the police since 01.12.1996 when the FIR was lodged at Anakapalli Town Police Station. The investigation has not been completed although about two-and-a-half years have passed. We do not know how long it will take to complete the investigation. That being so, the officer of the rank of the appellant, against whom it has now come out that the disciplinary proceedings are not contemplated, cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period, particularly in a situation where many more senior officers may ultimately be found involved, but the appellant alone has been placed under suspension. The Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension. It cannot be permitted to place an officer under suspension just to exhibit and feign that action against the officers, irrespective of their high status in the service hierarchy, would be taken.” Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Social Audit Report does not disclose anything about the involvement of the petitioner and therefore, he is not at all responsible for the alleged irregularities. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in E.S.REDDI v. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[2], wherein it was held as under: Selective action-Plea before Supreme Court that Government singled out an officer for adverse action (suspension pending inquiry) letting off co-delinquent officers-If the Court is prima facie satisfied that the plea is substantiated by the record produced by the Government, it is competent to advise the Government to take similar adverse action against the other equally culpable officers also, otherwise it would revoke the adverse order made against the aggrieved officer- Service law-Suspension” Learned counsel further contended that the 3rd respondent is not competent to issue suspension proceedings against the petitioner and it is a selective suspension. He also contended that though the petitioner was suspended on 14.07.2009, till today no charge memo was issued to him. He also relied upon the following judgments of the Apex Court in NEELIMA MISRA v. HARINDER KAUR PAINTAL[3]; MAHESH CHANDRA v. REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P.FINANCIAL CORPORATION[4]; NEW HORIZONS LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA[5]; HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. JAGDAMBA OIL MILLS [6]; ANIL RATAN SARKAR v. HIRAK GHOSH[7]; CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION v. UNION OF INDIA [8]; DEV DUTT v. UNION OF INDIA[9]; MAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA[10]. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the petitioner being a responsible Mandal Parishad Development Officer, failed in implementation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in Pinapaka Mandal during his tenure, misappropriated EGS funds and delayed in payment of wages to the labour and that based on the reports of the Social Audit and the Quality Control and Vigilance Cell, he was placed under suspension. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in UTTAR PRADESH RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD v. SANJIV RAJAN[11], wherein it was held as under: “The ground given by the High Court to stay the operation of the suspension order, is patently wrong. There is no restriction on the authority to pass a suspension order second time. The first order might be withdrawn by the authority on the ground that at that stage, the evidence appearing against the delinquent employee is not sufficient or for some reason, which is not connected with the merits of the case. As happened in the present case, the earlier order of suspension dated March 22,1991 was quashed by the High Court on the ground that some other suspended officer had been allowed to join duties. That order had nothing to do with the merits of the case. Ordinarily, when there is an accusation of defalcation of the monies, the delinquent employees have to be kept away from the establishment till the charges are finally disposed of. Whether the charges are baseless, malicious or vindictive and are framed only to keep the individual concerned out of the employment is a different matter. But even in such a case, no conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record in question and hence, it is always advisable to allow disciplinary proceedings to continue unhindered. It is possible that in some cases, the authorities do not proceed with the matter as expeditiously as they ought to, which results in prolongation of the sufferings of the delinquent employee. But the remedy in such cases is either to call for an explanation from the authorities in the matter, and if it is found unsatisfactory, to direct them to complete the inquiry within a stipulated period and to increase the suspension allowance adequately. It is true that in the present case, the charge-sheet was filed after almost a year of the order of suspension. However, the facts pleaded by the appellants show that the defalcations were over a long period from 1986 to 1991 and they involved some lakhs of rupees. It also appears that the authorities have approached the police and in the police investigation, the amount of defalcation is found to be still more. Since the matter is of taking accounts which are spread over from 1986 to 1991 and of correlating the entries with the relevant documents, and several individuals are involved, the framing of charges was bound to take some time. The Court has to examine each case on its own facts and decide whether the delay in serving the charge-sheet and completing the inquiry is justified or not. However, in the present case, the High Court has not quashed the order of suspension on the ground of delay in framing the charges. As stated earlier, it has set aside the order of suspension on the ground that the authority had no power to pass the second order of suspension in the same case. We are afraid that the High Court has misconstrued the nature and purpose of the power of suspension vested in the management. It is not disputed that at present all officers concerned are served with the charge sheets and have been suspended. There is no discrimination between the officers on that account. The charges are also grave and the authorities have come to the conclusion that during the disciplinary proceedings, the officers should not continue in employment to enable them to conduct the proceedings unhindered. Hence, we are satisfied that the order in appeal was not justified. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that the third respondent addressed a letter dated 20.10.2009 to the Director General, Vigilance and Enforcement Department, Hyderabad, to conduct detailed enquiry in the matter and for necessary action for recovery of misappropriated funds from the persons responsible and for taking disciplinary action by the departments concerned against the other employees, who involved in the alleged irregularities, and therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that he was selectively suspended. 6. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order impugned suffers from illegalities or irregularities warranting interference by this Court. 7. The petitioner was employed as Mandal Parishad Development Officer, MPP, Pinapaka. During EGS Social Audit conducted at MPP Pinapaka from 06.06.2009 to 18.06.2009, certain serious irregularities were noticed and that the third respondent suspended the petitioner pending enquiry, on the following grounds: (1) Failure and negligence in implementation of NREGS in MPP Pinapaka; (2) Misappropriation of Rs.39.96 lakhs (Rs.27.78 lakhs reported by the Quality Control and Vigilance + Rs.12.18 lakhs reported by the social Audit Team) (3) Abnormal delay in wage payments of huge amount of Rs.14.07 Lakhs. (4) Non-production of records to social Audit Team for Rs.47.07 Lakhs. The third respondent, as per the powers delegated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 12.02.2001, issued the said suspension proceedings and therefore, she is competent to keep the petitioner under suspension in the capacity of the District Collector and District Programme Coordinator. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent is not competent to suspend the petitioner has no merit. 8. Insofar as the other employees, who are involved in misappropriation of EGS funds, are concerned, the respondents stated that one of the employees i.e., M. Venkateswarlu, Assistant Executive Engineer, was kept under suspension and some Junior Technical Officers were removed from service and against the other officers, detailed enquiry was ordered and the same is in progress. Since the petitioner is involved in a large-scale misuse of public funds in execution of the public programme, and several employees are involved in the matter, framing of charges was bound to take some time and the authorities concerned have come to the conclusion that during the disciplinary proceedings, the officers should not continue in employment to enable them to conduct the proceedings unhindered. The petitioner was kept under suspension based on the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department and the Social Audit. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the suspension order unless it was passed mala fidely and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employees with the misappropriation in question. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 10. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed. However, since no charge memo was issued to the petitioner from the date of his suspension, the respondents are directed to take further steps in the matter and complete the same within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:25.03.2010. sj [1](`1999) 6 SCC 257 [2] (1987) 3 SCC 258 [3] (1990) 2 SCC 746 [4] (1993) 2 SCC 279 [5] (1995) 1 SCC 478 [6] (2002) 3 SCC 496 [7] (2002) 4 SCC 21 [8] (2005) 8 SCC 202 [9] (2008) 8 SCC 725 [10] (2008) 12 SCC 331 [11] 1993 Supp(3) SCC 483