HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2233 of 2010 Date: 25.03.2010 Between: S. Srinivasa Rao. … Petitioner And Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Tirupathi, rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2233 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 15.07.2009, issued by the 2nd respondent-General Manager, in Memo No.CGM (HRD)/DS-II/AS-III/PO(DC)/VJA/D.No. 1443/09, placing the petitioner under suspension, in exercise of powers under Regulation 11(ii)(b) of the A.P. State Electricity Board (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, as adopted by the respondent-Company. 2. The petitioner is an Additional Assistant Engineer in the 1st respondent-Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited. On the ground that he was involved in Crime No.347/2009, registered for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8(b) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, he was arrested and sent for remand on 29.06.2009 and was lodged in District Jail from up to 08.07.2009. As the petitioner was lodged in District Jail beyond 48 hours, the respondents have invoked the power under Regulation 11(ii)(b) of the A.P. State Electricity Board (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, as adopted by the respondent-Company, and the petitioner was placed under suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings. 3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that after investigation, the final report is already filed in Crime No.347 of 2009, as contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Inspite of the same, the suspension order is not being reviewed. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that when the petitioner has submitted representation, seeking for reinstatement, the same is rejected by the 2nd respondent by an order, dated 21st December 2009, passed in Memo No.CGM (HRD)/DS-II/AS-III/PO (DC)/ F198(3)- VJA/D.No.2668/09. In the said orders, it is stated that in view of pendency of case before the I Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, the request of petitioner for reinstatement cannot be considered unless there are directions from this Court. 4. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, that there are no separate departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, alleging misconduct. The petitioner is placed under suspension under Regulation 11(ii)(b), pursuant to registration of crime, pending investigation. It is also the case of the petitioner that after completion of investigation, the final report is already filed as contemplated under Section 173 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, whether the suspension is to be continued or to be revoked, is a matter to be considered independently by the respondents. The very object of placing under suspension is to conduct a fair investigation into the crime, in connection with which, allegations are made against the petitioner. When the final report is already filed in the crime in which he was arrested, it is for the respondents to consider independently, the aspect of revoking the suspension order. When the petitioner has submitted a representation for his reinstatement, instead of considering the same independently, respondents have rejected the claim on the ground that such a representation can be considered only on the directions from this Court. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, though this Court is not inclined to set aside the suspension order, dated 15.07.2009, issued by the 2nd respondent-General Manager, in Memo No.CGM (HRD)/DS-II/AS- III/PO(DC)/VJA/D.No.1443/0915, but however, I set aside the order, dated 21st December 2009, passed in Memo No.CGM (HRD)/DS-II/AS-III/PO (DC)/F198(3)- VJA/D.No.2668/09, and direct the respondents to consider the representation filed by the petitioner for revocation of the suspension order afresh, keeping in mind the final report submitted by the respondents in Crime No.347 of 2009, 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. 6. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 25th March 2010 ajr