IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9887 OF 2009 Between: Sri Kanduri Vijay Sarathi S/o. Sri K. Gopal Chary aged 44 years, Occ: District Inspector (under suspension), Legal Metrology, Ranga Reddy – III, Plot No.134/2 Ravi Colony, Thirumalgiri, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Controller, Legal Metrology Department, A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 writ or order or direction preferably writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the respondent vide Proceedings No.6592/VI/2008 dated 04-8-2008 placing the petitioner under Suspension as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice by setting aside the order passed by Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A No.6973/2008 dated 25-03- 2009. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. PAVAN KUMAR KOWTURU Counsel for the Respondent : G.P. FOR SERVICES - I The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Eswaraiah) The petitioner questions the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.6973 of 2008 dated 25-03-2009 in dismissing his application, which was filed questioning the suspension order passed by the respondent, the Controller, Legal Metrology Department, A.P., Hyderabad, vide proceedings No.6592/VI/2008 dated 04-08-2008. The respondent passed the order of suspension suspending the petitioner from his services in exercise of the powers under sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 8 of The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘CCA Rules’) until the trap case in Crime No.15/ACB-HR/2008 is disposed of. The petitioner was involved in A.C.B. case in Crime No.15/ACB- HR/2008 conducted by the A.C.B. authorities on 02-08-2008 and as the trap was successful in alleged acceptance of the gratification of Rs.5,000/-, he was arrested on 03-08-2008 and remanded to judicial custody till 16-08-2008 and he was enlarged on bail on 07-08-2008. Thus, the petitioner was in judicial custody from 02-08-2008 to 07-08-2008. Pursuant to the message communicated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Hyderabad with regard to the trap case, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry. The said order of suspension was questioned by the petitioner before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal under the original application contending that the complaint filed against him was with regard to demand of Rs.10,000/- for stamping and sealing the outlet of the Petrol Bunk, but only an amount of Rs.5,000/- was found in his possession. The petitioner was placed under suspension solely on the basis of the radio message sent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., but the respondent, which is the appointing authority, did not exercise its power of suspension independently. We have heard both sides and perused the suspension order as well as the impugned order. There is no dispute that suspension of the petitioner is solely based on the trap case conducted by the A.C.B. authorities in which the trap was successful. Admittedly, the criminal case is pending. Whether there was demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a matter to be decided either in the pending criminal case or in the departmental proceedings. In view of the involvement of the petitioner in the aforesaid trap case, there is prima facie case against the petitioner, and therefore, it cannot be said that he is an innocent and is not liable for suspension. Further, the suspension is on the ground that he was under judicial custody for more than 48 hours. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested on 02-08-2008 and sent to judicial custody till 16-08-2008 and he was enlarged on bail on 07-08-2008. Therefore, it cannot be said that the suspension of the petitioner by the respondent under Rule 8 (2) (a) of CCA Rules is illegal or without jurisdiction. The Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 9, 2009. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J PV/KTL