IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 19811 of 2008 Between: B.V.Brahmam S/o.Nagaiah RDO's Office, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 4 The District Supplies Officer, Guntur, Guntur 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 to issue an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned orders dated 12.08.2008 in O.A.No.4885/2008 and also impugned proceedings Rc.No.2631/08-A4, dated 30.6.2008 of the 1st Respondent and set aside the same by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to re-induct the petitioner into the duty forthwith, with all service and monetary benefits and to pass any such order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order in O.A.No.48855 of 2008 dated 12-08-2008 on the file of the Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and the proceedings dated 30-06-2008, and consequently to direct the respondents to re-induct the petitioner into the duty forthwith. The details relevant for deciding the writ petition are that the petitioner, while working as Special Deputy Tahsildar, City P.D.S., R.D.O’s Office, Guntur, was placed under suspension by proceedings dated 30-06-2008 alleging that he committed certain irregularities in public distribution system. In the above OA, the order of suspension has been challenged on the ground that the suspension was made on the basis of newspaper publications only. The official respondents have filed counter denying that the suspension was made pursuant to newspaper publications. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions and upon perusing the official record observed that the suspension is not only based on adverse item published in the newspaper but also in view of the report submitted by the Joint Collector, Guntur, and other reports submitted. The Tribunal further observed that there should either be a complaint or there should be a prima-facie material submitted by the preliminary enquiry officer for issuing such suspension order. The Tribunal ultimately disposed of the OA by giving four weeks time to the disciplinary authority to issue a charge memo directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by passing final orders, within a period of three months from the date of issuance of the charge memo, and if for any reason the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within three months, the respondents shall re-induct the applicant into service and post the applicant in a non-focal post, at a far of place. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the date of suspension has to be treated as initiation of disciplinary proceedings and in view of the instructions of the government issued in Circulars dated 01-07-1998 and 28-07-2003 the disciplinary proceedings have to be concluded within three months in simple matters and within six months in case of complicated matters. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contended that the Court cannot interfere with the suspension order pending disciplinary enquiry. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side. In the instant case, the petitioner had been suspended not only on the basis of the news item published in the daily but also a report submitted by the Joint Collector, Guntur. The Tribunal satisfied itself about the suspension by calling for the record from the official respondent and recorded that the suspension has been made pursuant to the report of the Joint Collector and also other reports submitted after publication of news item. When the suspension is effected basing on the report of the Joint Collector it cannot be said that the suspension is only on the basis of news item. In fact, the circulars dated 01-07-1998 and 28-07-2003 clearly stipulate that the disciplinary proceedings have to be completed within three months in simple matters and within six months in complicated mattes. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that the charge memo has not been issued to the delinquent official as stated by the official respondent in the counter-affidavit filed before Tribunal. In the circumstances, we are not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings starts from the date of suspension. In fact, the disciplinary proceedings would commence from the date of issuance of charge memo. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly directed the authority to issue a charge memo to the petitioner and conclude the disciplinary proceedings by passing final orders within three months after issuing charge memo. The Tribunal further made it clear that, if for any reason the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded, within three months, the authority shall re-induct the petitioner into service and post the applicant in a non-focal post, at a far of place. In the circumstances, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference of this court under the certiorari jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 11th September, 2008 SKM