The Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Writ Petition No.7960 of 2011 Between: C.Ch.Rama Lingaiah ..... Petitioner AND 1.A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, Urdu Gally, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration, by way of Mandamus, that proceedings No.2082/APSHCL/Vig(3)/ KRL/2010, dated 06-12-2010, issued by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension pending contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, is illegal and arbitrary. The brief facts of the case are: The petitioner was appointed as Works Inspector in the first respondent- Corporation in the year 1986. Thereafter, in the year 2008, he was transferred to Guntur on promotion as Assistant Engineer and has been working as such. While so, respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings alleging that the petitioner committed grave irregularities in execution of Indiramma Housing Programme at Parlapalli Village of Yemmiganur Mandal and misappropriated the funds to a tune of Rs.1,98,235/- and placed him under suspension pending contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. It is averred that there is, in fact, no cash transaction in the entire process; that only after the Mandal Development Officer makes recommendations to the effect that the stage of construction reached below the basement level, the amount will be transferred to the account of the beneficiaries; and that when the petitioner worked at Parlapudi Mandal, 400 houses were constructed and no irregularities were reported. It is further averred that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside. Heard both sides. An order of suspension pending enquiry can be passed if the authority concerned feels that the alleged misconduct is not baseless; that it requires an enquiry; and that in the interest of general public, it is necessary to suspend the Government servant pending enquiry. Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the order of suspension pending enquiry or contemplation of enquiry unless mala fides or lack of bona fides are attributed to the appointing/disciplinary authority. In this case, no such allegations are levelled against the authority. Whether the allegation of misconduct of committing misappropriation of funds to a tune of Rs.1,98,235/- is correct or not has to be decided during the departmental enquiry. The correctness or otherwise of that allegation cannot be tested or weighed in a proceeding under Article 226 of Constitution. Moreover, the alleged misconduct levelled against the petitioner is very serious in nature and therefore, he was rightly placed under suspension. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even though six months have lapsed from the date of suspension, no charge memo was issued to the petitioner and no enquiry was commenced. Appropriate decision has to be taken by respondent No.2 to issue a charge memo. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to proceed in accordance with law by giving a charge memo to the petitioner. If the petitioner files an explanation and the same is not satisfactory, respondent No.2 is further directed to conduct an enquiry as expeditiously as possible in accordance with rules and regulations governing the service conditions of petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (K.C.Bhanu, J) Date: 25th April, 2011 lur