IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12889 of 2008 Between: Sri J.H.Uma Mahesh S/o.J.Harish R/o.H.No.1-31-382, Indira Nagar, Milatiry Dairy Farm Road, Tirumalaghery, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Electronic Aur Yantrik Inginiyari, Abhilekh Karyalaya, EME Records, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Disciplinary Authority, Brigadier, OIC Records. 2 Electronic Aur Yantrik Inginiyari, Abhilekh Karyalaya, EME Records, Secunderabad, Rep. by its Commanding Officer. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in suspending the petitioner vide order dt. 26.10.2007 from his services is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same and pass such further other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12889 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Lower Divisional Clerk in the EME Center, Secunderabad. Vide orders, dated 26.10.2007, he was placed under suspension, on the ground that he was arrested on 16.08.2007 in connection with a Criminal Case. The petitioner states that though he was arrested on 16.08.2007, he was released within two days and that the investigation into the Criminal case has since been concluded. It is also stated that charge sheet has since been filed. The petitioner contends that though he made a representation, the respondents did not review his case at all and the continued suspension is resulting in serious hardship to him. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The suspension of the petitioner came to be ordered, not on the basis of any disciplinary proceedings, but on account of the detention in relation to a Criminal Case. The appointing authority is under obligation to review the cases of orders of suspension of this nature. In case, the investigation is completed and the charges framed against the employee do not reflect any moral turpitude etc., his case needs to be reviewed, so that the public exchequer is not burdened with the subsistence allowance and the organization is not denied the services of an employee. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 24.06.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12889 of 2008 Date: 24.06.2008 JSU