IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25318 of 2008 Between: M.A.Waheed Khan S/o.M.A.Waheed Khan Mahabubnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector and Executive Chairman, District Rural Development Agency, Mahabubnagar. 2 The Commissioner, Rural Development, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Mahabubnagar. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc. No.H/2059/2008, dated 23.5.2008 and its connected Charge Memo. No.H/2059/2008, dated 23.5.2008 issued by the District Collector and Executive Chairman D.R.D.A., Mahabubnagar as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, void and without jurisdiction and opposed to all principles of natural justice, equity and fair play and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was Superintendent in District Rural Development Agency, Mahaboobnagar. He was placed under suspension on the ground of involvement in certain illegal activities vide proceedings No.H/2059/2008, dated 23.05.2008 issued by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Mahaboobnagar-3rd respondent. The petitioner challenged the suspension proceedings on the ground that the 3rd respondent is not competent to suspend the person who is in the cadre of Superintendent, D.R.D.A. 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 19.11.2008. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner engaged himself in collecting illegal gratification from the educated un-employees on the false promise of providing job to them and that the representation dated 23.05.2008 of the victim is a enough proof. It is further stated that the Commissioner, Rural Development vide Memo.Rc.No.3697/RD, dated 23.06.2008 has informed the PD, DRDA, Mahaboobnagar-3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent is competent to suspend any employee of DRDA as per Annexure-II of G.O.Ms.No.135, dated 08.03.1991. 3. When WPMP No.33071 of 2008 came up for consideration, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been placed under suspension on 23.05.2008 and nearly 9 months period has been elapsed, but so far no review has been taken up as provided in G.O.Ms.No.480, G.A. (Ser-C) Department, dated 07.09.1993. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is of the Superintendent cadre and it is only the Commissioner, Rural Development, A.P., Hyderabad-2nd respondent, is the competent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner and since the suspension order came to be issued by the 3rd respondent, who is not competent to pass suspension order, it is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel took me to the Annexure-I of Service Conditions of the directly recruited employees of the District Rural Development Agencies vide G.O.Ms.No.135 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (R.D.II) Department, dated 08.03.1991. As per the note appended to Annexure- II of the Rules, the Project Director shall be the authority competent to suspend any employee pending enquiry and the Chairman of the DRDA, shall be the competent authority for reinstatement. Under Regulation 20 of the District Rural Development Agencies Service Regulations, the authorities competent to impose punishments against the employees shall be as shown in Annexure-II. Though as per Annexure-II, the appointing authority has been shown as Commissioner, Rural Development, A.P., Hyderabad, but the note appended to the Annexure-II indicates that the Project Director shall be competent authority to suspend any employee pending enquiry. 6. Be that as it may, the suspension order came to be issued on 23.05.2008. Under G.O.Ms.No.480, dated 07.09.1993, suspension order is to be reviewed at the end of every six months. The counter- affidavit filed by the respondents does not indicate of exercising such review at the end of six months after the suspension order. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to review the case of the petitioner and consider whether there is any necessity of the petitioner being continued under suspension within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:12th February, 2009. Cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}