HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3675 of 2010 Dated: 11-06-2010 Between: G. Srinivasa Rao. … Petitioner And The A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad, rep. by its Director (HR) & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3675 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, Sri K.Chidambaram. The petitioner is a Plant Attendant working in the 1st respondent-A.P. GENCO. He is placed under suspension by an order, dated 16.09.2009, issued by the 2nd respondent in Memo No.CE/O&M/KTPS/ADE/ADM/L.1/D.No.186/09, as per the APSEB Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, as adopted by the respondent-Company, on the ground that he was involved in criminal case No.197 of 2009 for the alleged offences under Sections 366-A, 376 read with 511 and 34 of IPC, and he was arrested in connection with the said crime, on 16.07.2009, and was released on bail n 13.08.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that though the order of suspension is to be reviewed periodically for every six months as per the instructions issued by the Government, which were adopted by the respondent-Company, but the respondents are not doing so. It is also submitted that when the petitioner has filed a representation, dated 18th January 2010, requesting to revoke the order of suspension, respondents have passed an order, dated 29th January 2010, passed in Memo No.D(HR)/CGM(HR)/AS(O&M)/PO-DC/24/09, rejecting the same, on the ground that the representation was not found merit consideration. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that no reasons are assigned for rejecting his request for revocation of suspension. It is submitted that merely because Rules permit suspension, respondents cannot place the petitioner under suspension without examining the public interest and also whether such allegation will have any effect on the employee continuing in service. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that as the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, involving the moral turpitude, he is placed under suspension as per Regulation 11 of the APSEB Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, as adopted by the A.P. GENCO. In the counter, it is further stated that the request of the petitioner for revocation of the suspension is negatived, since there is no positive material to lift the suspension. In this writ petition, it is to be noticed that the order of suspension is passed as early as on 16.09.2009. On the alleged misconduct, no independent departmental proceedings are initiated, but the petitioner is placed under suspension only on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case, and there are accusations against him for the offences under Sections 366-A, 376 read with 511 and 34 of IPC. The petitioner has denied his involvement and is contesting the proceedings. I have also perused the copy of the order, dated 29th January 2010, passed in Memo No.D(HR)/CGM(HR)/AS(O&M)/PO-DC/24/09, by which, the representation of the petitioner for revocation of suspension is rejected merely on the ground that he has not placed sufficient material. In a case like this, it is for the respondent-employer to consider whether any public interest would serve in continuing the petitioner further under suspension, as much as one year period is already elapsed. The further question that is also to be considered is, if the petitioner is continued in employment, whether it will have any impact on the investigation and trial of the case, on the allegations levelled against him. In this regard, a Division Bench judgement of this Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of P.Rajender V. Union of India[1], would support the case of the petitioner. In the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court has held that merely because the Rules enable it, the order of suspension cannot be ordered in a routine manner. In the said judgment, it is stated that it is obligatory on the part of respondents to consider the public interest having regard to relevant facts and circumstances, and also the question whether it has any impact on the employee continuing in service. As much as these aspects are not considered by the respondents while rejecting the representation of the petitioner by an order, dated 29th January 2010, passed in Memo No.D(HR)/CGM(HR)/AS(O&M)/PO-DC/24/09, keeping in mind that the order of suspension is passed as early as on 16.09.2009, and more than one year is already elapsed, and the petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance without any service, I deem it appropriate to set aside the order, dated 29th January 2010, passed in Memo No. D(HR)/CGM(HR)/AS(O&M)/PO-DC/24/09, with a direction to the respondents to consider the matter afresh, taking into account the factors as indicated by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Rajender (1 supra), and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th June 2010 ajr [1] 2001 (5) ALD 290 (DB)