IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3207 of 2008 Between: R. Narayana, S/o. Late Ambaiah, R/o. House No. 23-70, Nethaji Nagar, Gaddianaram, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director. 2 The Girijan Cooperative Coporation Limited, Visakhapatnam, Rep. byits General Manager (Finance). 3 The Girijan Cooperative Coporation Limited, Kamareddy Rep. by its Senior Manager, at Kamareddy, Nizamabad 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No. 478/2007/LE/A7, dated 05-02-2008 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the Service Rules of the respondents Corporation and violative of principles of natural justice apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.VIVEKANAND The Court made the following : The petitioner is working as Junior Assistant in the Girijan Co-operative Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam, the 1st respondent. Vide orders dated 05-02-2008, the 1st respondent placed the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he has been put incharge of godowns and other duties, at various points of time, and that on all occasions, he maintained proper accounts and handled the products in accordance with the relevant circulars. He contends that the 1st respondent has dug up certain old and obsolete matters, and issued the orders of suspension. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed, stating inter alia that certain irregularities, resulting in huge loss to the Corporation; were noticed, as regards the functioning of the petitioner, and a detailed inquiry is contemplated into the same. Various instances attributed to the petitioner are referred in the counter-affidavit, and it is urged that the order of suspension, pending inquiry, does not suffer from any illegality. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Vivekanand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. As many as four instances are referred to, in the order of suspension, and they relate to alleged failure of the petitioner to settle the dues, and in accounting for the stocks, said to have been handled by the petitioner. The money value of the alleged lapses was also indicated. The occasion to interfere with the order of suspension, pending inquiry, would arise, only when it is passed by an authority, not vested with the power, or where it is patently illegal and arbitrary. Verification as to truthfulness or correctness of the allegations would be purposely desisted from, because the same is to be undertaken in the departmental proceedings. Though it is urged that there is no provision in the Service Rules of the 1st respondent-Corporation, to place an employee under suspension, it becomes evident that Rule 17 clearly provides for suspension of an employee, pending inquiry. Even otherwise, it is an inherent power. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order of suspension, at this stage. Through the impugned order itself an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed. The interests of the petitioner can be protected, by directing early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, but with a direction that the respondents shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall extend necessary cooperation in this regard. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt: 26-03-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}