IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.11003 of 2009 Between: V. Baddu Naik S/o. Bamla Naik, R/o. Maruthinagar Guntur ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Engineer, S.P.D.C.L. Operation, Rayapudi, Guntur 2 The Superintending Engineer, S.P.D.C.L. Operation, Guntur. 3 The Chief Engineer, O & M, S.P.D.C.L. Vijayawada. 4 The Chief General Engineer, S.P.D.C.L. HRD, Tirupathi 5 The Divisional Electrical Engineer, S.P.D.C.L. Rural Division, Guntur. 6 Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Manager, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus as the suspension proceedings against petitioner by the Respondent No.5 is illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional consequently direct the Respondents No. 1 to 6 to reinstate the petitioner into service and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.KALYANA RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11003 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents. This Writ Petition has been instituted calling in question the validity of the order passed by the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Rural Division, Guntur of Southern Power Distribution Company Limited of Andhra Pradesh on 12-11-2008, placing the writ petitioner under suspension. The impugned order has come to be passed as it has come to the notice of the Divisional Electrical Engineer, the competent authority, that the writ petitioner was arrested on 08-08-2008 by the Police at Mangalagiri Rural, Guntur District as he was involved in Crime No.81/2008, booked under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. When he was produced before the Court, he was remanded to judicial custody and he has been enlarged on bail only on 24-10-2008. Thus, for more than two and half months, the writ petitioner was confined to judicial custody. Therefore, the Divisional Electrical Engineer, invoked the power available under Regulations 11 (a) (ii) and 11 (b) of the A.P.S.E.B. Discipline and Appeal Regulations and placed him under suspension with effect from 08-08-2008. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without putting the writ petitioner on notice and hence, the principles of natural justice have been violated. The learned counsel would also submit that the respondents have not properly taken into account and consideration the fact situation prevailing on record and they ought to have assessed as to whether the alleged involvement of the writ petitioner in the offence would have any effect on his continuance in service or not. Further, the writ petitioner has been falsely implicated in the criminal charge and without any opportunity for the writ petitioner to explain these circumstances he has been literally condemned. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The present order has been passed placing the writ petitioner under suspension for his involvement in a criminal case, followed up by his detention for a period of more than 48 hours. As of now, the writ petitioner is alleged to have been involved in a very grave offence. Persons, who are involved in commissioning grave offences, are not liable to be retained in service till such time they get exonerated of such imputations. The respondents, being public authorities, are entitled to ensure that their employees bear good moral conduct. It is essential that the personnel employed by them should not only bear good and decent moral conduct but also bear the same through out the tenure of their employment. Otherwise, the image of the employer is likely to suffer a damage. It is, therefore, only appropriate that persons, who are allegedly involved in grave crimes, are kept away from service. The present order being an order of suspension pending further investigation into the crime/ disciplinary proceedings, if any, to be initiated against him, it is only a step-in-aid of such investigation or enquiry. No rights, much less the conditions of service of the employee would be adversely affected by such a measure. In case, the writ petitioner is found not guilty of the misdemeanor alleged against him, the entire period of suspension is liable to be treated as period spent on duty and regulated in accordance with the fundamental rules governing the employment. For the present, an order of suspension would only prevent the employee from necessarily reporting to the work place day in and day out. Hence, it is not required to be preceded by any show cause notice nor was the employee needed to be informed of the imputations before hand. If the respondents are awaiting the outcome of the criminal cases launched against the writ petitioner, they are not required to do anything more, pursuant to the impugned order of suspension. On the other hand, if they prefer to proceed against the writ petitioner, then, they will have to follow the procedure prescribed under the APSEB Employees’ Revised Conduct Regulations before imposing any punishment. I do not see any merit in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly, dismissed, but however, without costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 17th July, 2009 pn/ksld HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11003 of 2009 17th July, 2009