HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 30761 OF 2010 Between: Dr. I. Poorna Chandra Rao Paathrudu S/o Late I. Narasimha Rao ………….Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Commissioner, Department of Ayush and four others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the orders passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Review M.A.No. 2387 of 2010 dated 19.11.2010 and in O.A.No. 4778 of 2010 dated 3.8.2010, the present Wit Petition is filed. The petitioner herein preferred O.A.No. 4778 of 2010 before the Tribunal challenging the proceedings of the first respondent therein dated 13.7.2010, wherein and whereby certain allegations were made against the petitioner and an enquiry was contemplated. That O.A. was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the fourth respondent. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner herein preferred Review Petition under Section 22(3) (f) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking to review the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A; that Review Petition was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioner preferred this Writ Petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the third respondent submitted a unilateral and biased report to the 1st respondent wherein the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner was purposely shown in a bad light with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. He also submits that when an altercation happened between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the petitioner alone has been placed under suspension ignoring the other person therefore, it is a selective suspension and the Tribunal ought to have interfered with the suspension order in such a situation. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in K. SUKHENDAR REDDY VS. STATE OF A.P AND ANOTHER[1], wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph 7 observed as under: “Another vital fact which has come on record is that in the criminal case a number of senior IAS officers, even senior to the appellant, may be found involved, but nothing positive or definite can be said as yet as the investigation is likely to take time. The matter is pending with the police since 1.12.1996 when the FIR was lodged at Anakapalli Town Police Station. The investigation has not been completed although about two-and-a-half years have passed. We do not know how log it will take to complete the investigation. That being so, the officer of the rank of the appellant, against whom it has now come out that the disciplinary proceedings are not completed, cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period, particularly in a situation where many more senior officers may ultimately be found involved, but the appellant alone has been placed under suspension. The Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension. It cannot be permitted to place an officer under suspension just to exhibit and feign that action against the officers, irrespective of their high status in the service hierarchy, would be taken.” Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare and also perused the material made available on record. We have perused the counter affidavit filed by the Additional Director (Unani) (FAC), Department of AYUSH, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad on behalf of the respondents, who is an independent and impartial person and who has witnessed the incident. In the counter it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has not maintained the protocol of standing when his higher officer Dr. Y. Sekhar, Superintendent of the Hospital has come for rounds in the Ward No. 2 and he exceeded his limits by trying to hit Dr.Y. Sekhar, Superintendent, with his shoe by using filthy language. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Even the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in K. SUKHENDAR REDDY VS. STATE OF A.P AND ANOTHER (supra-1) relied on by petitioner is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, authorities concerned are directed to complete and conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the order of the Tribunal with regard to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the 4th respondent is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J DATE: 08.12.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] (1999) 6 SCC 257