IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10623 of 2008 Between: K.S. Ranganadha Rao Son of K. Ananda Rao A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Ramagiri Mandal, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P. Schedule Caste Co-operative Finance Corporation Ltd, represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 3 The District Collector/Executive Director, Ananthapur, Ananthapur 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 writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing impugned proceedings Rc.no.1245/2007/SA4 datede 21/04/2008 is highly arbitrary illegal and against A.P.C.S.(CCCA) Eules, 1991, without authority and also against the articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10623 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the A.P. Scheduled Caste Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited, 2nd respondent herein. He was deputed to the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, 1st respondent herein, and posted to the District Unit of Anantapur. The District Collector, who happens to be the Executive Director of the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Anantapur, 3rd respondent herein placed the petitioner under suspension, vide orders, dated 21.04.2008. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension and even on merits also, the said action cannot be sustained. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 3, on the other hand, submits that certain irregularities, in the matter of issuance of cement, were noticed against the petitioner and taking the same into account, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order. He contends that the action of the 3rd respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension was ratified by the 2nd respondent, vide his proceedings, dated 03.05.2008. The petitioner is working on deputation in the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited. His employer and the parent Department is the 2nd respondent. A borrowing Department can place an employee on deputation, if only the relevant service regulations provide for it. The respondents are not in a position to place any such provisions before this Court. Not being the appointing authority of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was not competent to place the petitioner under suspension. At the most, he could have appraised the 2nd respondent of any acts or omissions on the part of the petitioner and left it for the 2nd respondent to take necessary action. The impugned order is, therefore, patently illegal. Therefore, on the short ground of lack of jurisdiction, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the material before him. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 18.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10623 of 2008 Date: 18.07.2008 JSU