IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEL No.1489 of 2009 Between: Gannu Sanjeeva Rao … Appellant And The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust Administrative Office Building, Port Area, Visakhapatnam & another. … Respondents. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri P. Srinivas Rao for Sri P. Sri Raghuram This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1489 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Order dated 27.11.2009 in Writ Petition No.23629 of 2009, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, is assailed in this appeal. At the hearing, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that though the Visakhapatnam Port Trust is vested with the powers conferred by the Visakhapatnam Port Employees’ (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1968 (for short, “the Regulations”) to place the appellant under suspension in view of the registration of the criminal case, the said power was not exercised by the employer independently, but on the request made by the CBI. The learned counsel further submitted that the case was registered as far back as 2004 and that the appellant is innocent. In our considered opinion, it cannot be said that the employer has exercised the power vested in it under Regulation 7(1)(b) of the Regulations either mechanically or without application of mind. The fact that a criminal case has been registered against the appellant and a charge sheet has also been filed by the CBI is not in dispute. The employer, however, is required to consider whether on the given set of facts it is expedient for it to place the employee under suspension pending trial in a criminal case, which is likely to take several years. The employer will loose substantial money towards payment of subsistence allowance during suspension period. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the builder has misused the application form and pay slips submitted by the appellant and similarly situated employees for procuring building loans, we feel that it would be appropriate if the appellant makes a detailed representation to the employer requesting for a review of the order of suspension. We are sure if such a representation is made, the employer will consider objectively and take an appropriate decision whether to continue the suspension of the appellant or revoke the same. If a representation in this regard is made within a period of three weeks from today, the employer shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks thereafter. It is made clear that the employer will consider the representation of the appellant notwithstanding the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ appeal, WAMP.No.3102 of 2009 filed by the appellant for interim relief is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 19.01.2010 ES