THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6967 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is presently working as Assistant Lineman (Operation) Division, Tirupati of APSPDCL, has questioned the validity of memo bearing No.DEE/O/TPT/ADM /JAO/U1/D.No.300/2010, dated 09.03.2010, by which, the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 11 of the APSPDCL Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations placed him under suspension. On a complaint of one C.Rangappa that the petitioner secured his job by submitting bogus educational certificates at the time of joining in the department, a case in Crime No.22 of 2010 was registered against him by the Station House Officer, Yerpedu Police Station for the offences under Sections 420 and 419 IPC. In that connection, he was arrested on 05.03.2010 and released on bail on 09.03.2010. The first respondent while referring to his detention in the prison for a period more than 48 hours and contemplating disciplinary proceedings against him, issued the impugned memo to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent has issued the impugned memo without examining whether such registration of crime against the petitioner and his arrest would have any impact on him in continuing his services or not. In support of the same, he placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in P.RAJENDER v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[1]. It is not in dispute that the disciplinary and appeal regulations, which are applicable to the employees of APSPDCL, empowers the employer to place an employee under suspension, if he is detained in police custody in connection with a criminal case or otherwise for a period longer than 48 hours. The allegation as mentioned in the complaint lodged against the petitioner is that he secured the job by submitting bogus certificates at the time of joining in the department. In view of Regulation 11 of the APSPDCL Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is in police custody for a period longer than 48 hours and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, it cannot be said that the impugned memo was issued without examining the case of the petitioner. In the above-cited judgment, suspension order was passed against the employee after filing of charge sheet and that the offence registered against him is under Section 498-A IPC. In the case on hand, the allegation directly relates to the employment itself. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner did not render any assistance. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the action of the first respondent in issuing the impugned memo suspending the petitioner from service. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th MARCH, 2010. kvni [1] 2001(5) ALD 290 (DB)