THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.18261 OF 2009. Date: 03.09.2009 Between: M.Ranganath .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy and others ..Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Aggrieved by the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, dismissing the petitioner’s application in O.A.No.6736 of 2009 by order dated 21.07.2009, this writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner filed the said O.A. aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2009 placing him under suspension on the ground that the Anti Corruption Bureau officials conducted a trap and a sum of Rs.3,000/- tainted with phenolphthalein powder was found in the right side drawer of the table of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials have conducted a surprise check on 25.04.2009 at 11.45 hours on a complaint given by the complainant - Sri A.Prabhakar Reddy, resident of Aregudem, Hamlet of Yeldurthy village and Mandal, alleging that for issuance of the Land Income Certificate, the said amount was demanded from him. It is stated that when the complainant came to him and requested to give the certificate, the petitioner went to almyrah to bring the file relating to issuance of the certificate and while he was taking the file from the almyrah by opening the doors, he was unable to see the face and the action of the said complainant. It is stated that the said complainant might have put the amount in his table drawer. At that time, the Anti Corruption Bureau officials came to the table of the petitioner and opened the draw and found the said amount in his table mischievously. It is stated that he has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe and the phenolphthalein test conducted to the hands of the petitioner was found negative and, therefore, it cannot be said that he had demanded or accepted the said tainted money and, therefore, the suspension, pending enquiry, is illegal and unwarranted. It is further stated that though he was arrested on 25.04.2009 and was in custody for more than 48 hours, admittedly, he was not suspended under Rule 8(2) of the A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘the Rules’) but he was suspendedunder Rule 8(1) of the Rules on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him. 3. We have perused the suspension order dated 01.05.2009 issued by the District collector. According to the said order, the petitioner demanded and accepted the said bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant for issuance of the Land Income Certificate and the said amount was found in the right side table drawer of the petitioner and the dust of the phenolphthalein powder collected from the right side table drawer of the petitioner came into contact with the tainted currency notes with the help of cotton swab when dipped into sodium carbonate solution, turned into pink colour. He was arrested and produced before the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B.Cases, Hyderabad. He was not only in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, but it is also stated that an enquiry is contemplated in this regard, and therefore, he was suspended under Section 8(1) of the Rules. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the Deputy Tahsildhar was also suspended along with the petitioner, the O.A. filed by him was allowed on the ground that the tainted money was not found in his possession and, therefore, the order of suspension pending enquiry is not warranted. 5. We are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the said order of the Tribunal. The petitioner was suspended only pending enquiry. The involvement or innocence of the petitioner will be known only after completion of the enquiry. Therefore, we are of the opinion that any expression of our opinion on the subject matter may affect the rights of the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. Accordingly, we do not see any illegality with the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V.AFZUL PURKAR, J September 3, 2009. AMD/CVRK