THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6644 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Secretary in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd., Humsa, of Nizambad District, in the year 1984. Subsequently he was transferred to various Societies, and ultimately to the 1st respondent-Society at Rudrur, in the year 1993. The petitioner states that the President of the Society insisted on deposit of the recovered amounts in his petrol bunk account, and when the petitioner refused to comply with the same, he started harassing him. He alleges that vide proceedings dated 06-02- 2006, he was reverted from the post of Secretary to that of Clerk, and transferred to a different place. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed an order dated 13-08-2006, placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner challenges the alleged order of reversion and the order of suspension, pending inquiry. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the action of the 1st respondent, whether in reverting the petitioner to the post of Clerk, or placing him under suspension, cannot be sustained in law. He contends that when the initial appointment of the petitioner, way back in the year 1984, was to the post of Secretary, the 1st respondent does not have the jurisdiction, to revert the petitioner to lower post. He submits that the harassment by the 1st respondent did not stop, even when the reversion, and that the petitioner was placed under suspension without any basis. Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was never reverted to a lower post, and he was only transferred by proceedings dated 06-02-2006. He further contends that the disciplinary inquiry into grave charges is pending against the petitioner, and that the petitioner was placed under suspension, in view of the contemplated disciplinary proceedings. The first grievance of the petitioner is, about the alleged reversion. Though the petitioner submits that he has been reverted to the post of Clerk and posted to a different place, vide orders dated 06- 02-2006, on a perusal of the said order, it becomes clear that, except that the petitioner was transferred, no reversion was ordered. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent made it clear that, never an order of reversion was passed against the petitioner. So far as the second grievance of the petitioner is concerned, it is no doubt true that nearly two years have elapsed, ever since the petitioner was placed under suspension, and in the normal course, the inquiry ought to have been concluded by this time. All the same, the petitioner cannot be directed to be reinstated, simply because much time has elapsed, from the date of suspension. Further, having regard to the nature of allegations, though it may not be taken as proved, at this stage, it cannot be said that there was no basis for placing the petitioner under suspension. The interests of the petitioner can be protected by directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from today. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the order of suspension, but directing that the disciplinary proceedings, initiated against the petitioner, shall be concluded within a period of three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.30-06-2008. Note: c.c. in three days. (B/O) KO