THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23072 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations) in respondent No.2-Society. Through order, dated 23.03.2011, respondent No.2 placed the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. It is stated that though the action was sought to be taken against as many as 13 employees, two have retired, nine were repatriated to the parent organisation and the petitioner and another were placed under suspension. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 has not even issued the charge sheet so far and the continued suspension would affect the career of the petitioner, who is scheduled to retire in November, 2011. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It is stated that in the course of verification of records, serious irregularities in the matter of erection of distribution lines and billing to Contractors were noticed and taking the same into account, the Managing Committee of respondent No.2 has passed a resolution, dated 23.03.2011. It is stated that the preliminary enquiry leading to framing of charges was hindered on account of several facts. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch.Koteshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The order of suspension, dated 23.03.2011, passed against the petitioner is silent as to the specific nature of charges. In fact, it is not required under law to be elaborative. The general observation of the Committee was that large-scale irregularities have taken place in the matter of erection of distribution lines and billing to Contractors. Across the Bar, it is stated that 13 persons were identified and out of them, 9, who were already from Distribution Companies, were repatriated. It is almost certain that no proceedings were initiated against them. Out of the remaining four, two have retired from service and the petitioner and another employee were placed under suspension. In case the matter was grave enough and the suspension of the petitioner was warranted in public interest, it was certainly open to respondent No.2 to do so. When the order of suspension was passed, it is possible to assume that such a situation existed. However, the very fact that even after about 6 months, respondent No.2 was not able to frame charges, much less to make any progress in the enquiry discloses that the so-called gravity or public interest are conspicuously absent. The petitioner is due to retire in November, 2011. At present pace of the proceedings, he may have to retire even while under suspension. The allegation of the petitioner that the order of suspension was passed vindictively to deny him the benefit of past service gains importance, and as a counter-blast for his approaching this Court by filing W.P.No.30152 of 2010 challenging the order of compulsory retirement, assumes significance. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to respondent No.2 to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law after reinstating the petitioner into service. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.09.2011 kdl