THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.2891 OF 1999 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner is a Junior Lecturer in Telugu in Taluk Junior College, Tenali, Guntur District. By the impugned memo in Rc.No.M.168/98 dated 1.8.1998 the 4th respondent – Secretary and Correspondent of the College, placed him under suspension on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case and was in police station for more than forty eight hours and also was in judicial remand for a period of eighteen days. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition is that he is working as Junior Lecturer in Telugu in Taluk Junior College, Tenali, Guntur District. He was falsely implicated as accused no.8 in a criminal case in Crime No.55/1998 for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 307, 109, 120-B of I.P.C. and was arrested on 19.4.1998 and was remanded to judicial custody and while the matter stood thus, the impugned proceeding dated 1.8.1998 has been issued suspending him temporarily from service. The case of the petitioner is that the order of suspension was not preceded by any disciplinary enquiry and that it was passed nearly after a period of four months after the date of arrest and hence the same is contrary to law. His further case is that he cannot be kept under suspended beyond the period of suspension. With these averments, inter alia, the impugned proceeding was sought to be set aside. 4. The 3rd respondent – Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Guntur, ﬁled counter aﬃdavit and stated that the petitioner was involved in criminal case and was arrested and was remanded to judicial custody and that he was in judicial custody for a period of 18 days and further, the then Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur issued proceedings in Rc.No.2702/B1/98 dated 31.7.1998 to the Secretary and Correspondent, Taluk Junior College, Tenali to take action against the petitioner, as he was involved in a criminal case and arrested on 19.4.1998 and was sent to judicial remand for 18 days The Secretary and correspondent, Taluk Junior college issued impugned memo suspending the petitioner from service as per the instructions of the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur. In pursuance of the interim orders of this court suspending the impugned order, the petitioner was reinstated into service. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. None appeared for the 4th respondent and no counter affidavit is also filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 79(3)(a) and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, no employee shall be placed under suspension except by conducting an enquiry and even the order of suspension shall be in force for a period of two months and however, the competent authority may for the reasons to be recorded in writing may extended the said period to a further period, not exceeding two months. In the present case, the suspension is continued beyond two months without an order from the competent authority with reasons and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. With these contentions, she sought for setting aside the impugned order and allow the writ petition. 7. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader for Education submitted that as the petitioner was involved in the criminal case and was arrested and was also sent for judicial remand for a period of 18 days, that the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur issued proceedings dated 31.7.1998 and based on the same, the Correspondent of the 4th respondent – College, suspended the petitioner and however, pursuant to the interim orders of this court, the petitioner was reinstated into service. Therefore, he sought to pass appropriate orders. 8. In the light of the above rival contentions, I would examine the validity of the impugned order. 9. The petitioner is working as Junior Lecturer in the Taluk Junior College, Tenali, Guntur District, which is an aided institution and as he was arrested on 19.4.1998 and was kept in police station for more than 48 hours, further as he was sent to judicial custody for a period of eighteen days in connection with a criminal case, he was issued the impugned proceedings dated 1.8.1998 suspending him temporarily from service. This court while admitting the writ petition on 16.2.1999 granted interim suspension and the 4th respondent – College reinstated the petitioner into service and the petitioner joined on 22.2.1999. 10. At this juncture it is necessary to note Section 79(3)(a) and (b) of the Act, which deals with dismissal, removal or reeducation in rank or suspension etc., of employees of private institutions. (3) (a) No employee shall be placed under suspension except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct of such employee is contemplated. (b) No such suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such inquiry is not started and completed within that period, such employee shall, without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored as employee: Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing extend the said period of two months for a further period not exceeding two months, if in the opinion of such competent authority the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly attributable to such employee. 11. From a reading of the above provision, it could be seen that no employee shall be suspended except when an enquiry into the gross misconduct of such employee is contemplated and further no such suspension shall remain force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such enquiry is not started and completed within that period, he shall be deemed to have been restored as employee without prejudice to the inquiry and however, the competent authority can extend the said period of two months for a further period of two months, by recording reasons. 12. In the present case, no material is placed on record to show that an enquiry into the gross-misconduct of the petitioner is contemplated. Further, the impugned order suspending the petitioner temporarily, is dated 1.8.1998 and as per sub clause (a) to sub section 3 to Section 79 of the Act suspension shall be in force only for a period of two months from the date of suspension and if enquiry is not started and completed within that period, the employee shall be deemed to be restored into service. However, the competent authority, is empowered to extend the suspension period for a further period of two months. The two months period as prescribed in sub section 3 (a), in the present case, expired by 1.10.1998 and thereafter the competent authority by recording any valid reasons, did not extend the period of suspension for a further period of two months. Hence, for these reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- 08.09.2008