THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3884 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Clerk, on 03.04.1981, in the 3rd respondent, a Private Educational Institution, admitted to grant-in- aid. He was placed under suspension by the 3rd respondent, on 14.06.1991, alleging that he misappropriated a sum of Rs.13,168/-, from the Teachers’ Provident Fund. After conducting the disciplinary enquiry, the 3rd respondent dismissed the petitioner from service, through order dated 18.11.1991. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, against the order of dismissal. An interim order was passed by the 2nd respondent on 18.03.1992, directing his reinstatement, pending the appeal. Certain proceedings ensued between the petitioner and the management. Ultimately, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 18.05.1997, setting aside the order of dismissal and directing reinstatement. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as dias non, disabling the petitioner from getting any salary, or benefit for that period. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent to the extent that he felt aggrieved by the order, dated 18.05.1997. The appeal was dismissed, on 23.12.2002. Hence, this Writ Petition. Heard Sri K. Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for School Education. The allegation against the petitioner was that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.13,168/-, from out of the Teachers’ Provident Fund. The record discloses that the petitioner admitted his guilt and deposited a sum of Rs.8,000/-. The appellate authority and the 2nd respondent have also taken note of that. Without referring to any evidence whatever, he straight away jumped to the conclusion that the petitioner may not have misappropriated the amount. To say the least, the 2nd respondent passed a totally untenable order allowing the appeal. When the relief granted in favour of the petitioner itself is somewhat untenable, the question of this Court interfering with that portion of it, through which, the period of suspension was treated as dias non, does not arise. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.27.12.2010. GJ