IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24675 of 2008 Between: D. Rama Rao (Hindu) S/o. Late Veer Raju Dosakayalapalli, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Dosakayalapalli P.A.C.S., Dosakayalapalli, Rep. by its President Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Secretary Dosakayalapalli P.A.C.S., Dosakayalapalli, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District. .....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 Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings in Case No.1/2008, dt. 1-11-2008, keeping the petitioner under suspension, as wholly illegal, arbitrary, vindictive and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dt. 1-11-2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the ﬁrst respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings in Case No.1/2008, dated 01-11-2008, keeping the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into certain allegations made against him as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner while working as attender in the ﬁrst respondent-society absented for duty from 08-04-2008 to 06-06-2008. Therefore, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the unauthorized absence. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that absolutely there was no necessity for placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into the allegation. The petitioner himself explained that he absented for one month and for the rest of the period for the reasons beyond his control. Therefore, the question of keeping the petitioner under suspension at this stage does not arise. I am of the opinion that absenteeism for more than two months is a serious charge and unless until the enquiry is completed the petitioner is not entitled for being continued in service. It is for the respondents to consider whether the petitioner to be kept in continued suspension or not. No extraordinary ground is made out calling for interference into the orders passed by the respondents in suspending the petitioner from service. Neither any question of jurisdiction or malaﬁdes is raised. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if enquiry is not completed by that time, the respondents shall reinstate the petitioner into service. Subject to above observation, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ 11th November, 2008 SKM