IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14191 of 2008 Between: R.Srinivasulu S/o.Late R.Agaiah R/o.H.No.13-2-65, matwada Warangal, Warangal District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 AP State Housing Corporation Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director, 3-6-184, Urdugalli,Himayathnagar,Hyderabad 2 The District Collector/Executive Director,Housing Warangal District,Warangal .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order of suspension passed in Proceedings No.C1/1309/2007 dated 18.6.2008 issued by 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently by setting aside the above said order direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.U.M.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.UDAYA BHASKARA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as Mandal In-charge in the Warangal Unit of A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited. Up to 15th April, 2008, he was working in the Jangaon Mandal. Through order, dated 15.04.2008, the District Collector transferred him to Narasimhulupet. The petitioner states that the order of transfer was kept in abeyance, since bye-elections have intervened. It is stated that the first respondent transferred him to Venkatapur Mandal, through order, dated 06.06.2008, and on the same day, he reported to duty, at that place. He is said to have fallen sick on 09.06.2008 and applied for medical leave. The first respondent issued proceedings, dated 18.06.2008, placing the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. It is pleaded that there is absolutely no basis for the respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension and that he has been continuously working at one place, or the other, as per the directions of the respondents, till he fell sick. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that the order, dated 15.04.2008, transferring the petitioner to Narasimhulupet, was never kept in abeyance and the petitioner did not obey the same. It is stated that even after a revised order of transfer, dated 06.06.2008, was issued, the petitioner remained indifferent and did not report to duty. Reference is made to the complaints against the petitioner about his way of working. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Very rarely does this Court interfere with the orders of suspension, pending enquiry. The question as to whether an employee is guilty of the misconduct, alleged against him, needs to be dealt with, in the domestic, or departmental enquiry. The reference to certain lapses on the part of the employee in the order of suspension is only to indicate that the suspension is not without any basis. As of now, the allegation against the petitioner is that he did not join the places to which he was transferred, be it, under order, dated 15.04.2008, or 06.06.2008. Though an attempt is made by the petitioner to contend that he reported duty in the Venkatapur Mandal, the fact remains that he did not report to the Executive Engineer, Mulug. The self-serving statement of the petitioner, as to joining of duty, cannot be taken on its face value, particularly at this stage. Though the order of suspension does not warrant interference, the respondents have to speed up the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner, so that, the matter can be given a quietus, at the earliest. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of upholding the order, dated 18.06.2008, and directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.18.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ