IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13942 of 2009 Between: Panga Bavaji S/o.Narayana working at Lukalam village, Narasannapeta Mandalam Srikakulam District, R/o.H.No.3-50, Naidu Veedhi Narsingapalli village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector and District -Election Officer Srikakulam district at Srikakulam 2 The Tahsildar, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings Rc.No.737/2009 A2 dated 15.4.2009 in keeping the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry as illegal, and arbitrary, and consequently set aside the same and the also the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.5425 of 2007 dated 23.6.2009 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Village Munsif in the year 1976 and subsequently he was appointed as Village Administrative Officer of Karagam village in the year 1992 and subsequently he was appointed as part time Village Assistant of Karagam village and thereafter he was posted to Lukalam village. While the petitioner was working as Village Revenue Officer at Lukalam village, Narasannapeta Mandal, Srikakulam District, he was placed under suspension vide orders of the District Collector, Srikakulam, in Rc.No.737/2009 A2, dated 15.4.2009, on the ground that the Tahsildar, Narasannapeta, reported about the alleged disobedience of the orders of the Returning Officer and absconded from the Returning Officer’s Office without intimation on 13.4.2009 from 8.00 a.m. onwards and when he was asked to attend the office of the District Collector, he refused to do so. It is stated that the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam also furnished a report on 14.4.2009 stating that the petitioner is likely to participate in political activities. Based on the said report dated 14.4.2009 and the report of the Tahsildar, Narasannapeta, dated 14.4.2009, the service of the petitioner as Village Revenue Officer (Part-time), Lukalam village of Narasannapet Mandal, was placed under suspension until the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and he was asked to be paid subsistence allowance of 50% of his consolidate pay until further orders. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Collector, Srikakulam, in Rc.No.737/2009 A2, dated 15.4.2009, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5425 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal contending that he never participated in the elections and he never disobeyed the orders of the Tahsildar and therefore his suspension pending enquiry is illegal and arbitrary. The Tribunal dismissed the said O.A.No.5425 of 2000 by order, dated 23.6.2009, having observed in the absence of the counsel for the applicant/ petitioner herein and on perusing records holding that the brother of the petitioner was contesting for one political party from Narasannapeta Constituency and the role of the petitioner was very much suspected about influencing the voters and rigging. The Tribunal declined to consider the case of the petitioner to set aside the suspension order dated 15.4.2009. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the observations of the Tribunal is without any basis whatsoever as neither the petitioner nor his relatives participated on behalf of any political party of Narsannapeta Constituency and the reports said to have been submitted by the Tahsildar, Narasannapeta and the Superintendent of the Police, Srikakulam are behind the back of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case as admittedly the petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry. Suspension pending enquiry cannot be for an indefinite period and the same is liable to be reviewed every six months. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to direct the first respondent District Collector, Srikakulam, to appoint an enquiry officer and complete the enquiry within six months from the date of receipt of this order. For any reason, if the enquiry is not completed within the said period, the enquiry proceedings shall be dropped and the petitioner shall be reinstated into service after the end of the said period of six months. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 14.7.2009 kpr