IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5793 of 2008 Between: K. Nirmal Babu S/o. Sri Nageswara Raoa O/o. Superintending Engineer, Social Welfare Circle, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Scheduled Caste Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad , Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director. 2 Vice Chairman & Managing Director A.P. Scheduled Caste Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. 3 Superintending Engineer, A.P. Scheduled Caste Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited, Social Welfare Circle, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension vide Proceedings Rc.No. A6/2378/APSC/2000 dt. 27-2-2008 is in violation of Rule 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (CCA) Rules as arbitrary, irrational and mechanical exercise of power and set aside the said orders and pass such other appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : MR.M.GANGA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Assistant Executive Engineer, in the year 1986. He was placed in-charge of Deputy Executive Engineer at Guntur, in the year 1997. As part of his duties, he took check measurements of various works and bills came to be paid to the concerned parties. Enquiry was undertaken into certain alleged irregularities, as regards clearance of bills in the Guntur division. The Vigilance and Enforcement Department has also conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report, in relation to the Land Development Scheme at Potharlunka Village of Kothur Mandal in Guntur District. Through orders, dated 27.02.2008, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the 2nd respondent. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri M.Ganga Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the orders of suspension, pending enquiry. The truth, or otherwise of the allegations made against the employee need to be established in the disciplinary proceedings. This case, however, presents a typical situation. The alleged irregularities are referable to the year 1997-98. Ever since then, the petitioner had served at various places and there are no allegations against him, as regards his subsequent conduct. A charge sheet was issued way back on 15.11.2003. Though explanation was submitted by him, there is no progress worth its name so far. Learned Standing Counsel submits that no Enquiry Officer has been appointed so far. There would have been some basis for the impugned order, had any new allegations came to be made against the petitioner, subsequent to the issuance of charge sheet. The only basis mentioned in the impugned order is that sanction has been accorded by the disciplinary authority for prosecution of the petitioner. It is noteworthy that the appointing authority did not feel the necessity of placing the petitioner under suspension, while issuing charge sheet. It is not as if sanction by the competent authority is essential for placing an employee under suspension. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not in the interest of either the respondents or the petitioner that the suspension pending enquiry continues. If at all anything, a situation would emerge, where the respondents have to pay substantial amounts towards subsistence allowance, or full salary, depending on the situation; without extracting any work from the petitioner. Any apprehension in this regard may be allayed by directing that the petitioner shall not be entrusted with any duties, entailing financial commitments on behalf of the respondents-organization. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is directed that the respondents shall not entrust any duties to the petitioner, which would entail in financial commitments to the organization. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.25.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ To 1.2CD copies