THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NOs.16773, 16774, 16775, 16776 AND 16868 OF 2009 (DATED : 17-08-2009) Between: K.Venkateshwarlu S/o K.Gopal Field Assistant, Gram Panchayat, Masoorlreddypally, Porumamilla Madal, Kadapa District (Petitioner in W.P.No.16773 of 2009) Bandla Venkata Subbaiah S/o Subbarayudu Field Assistant, Gram Panchayat, Pulliveeru, Porumamilla Madal, Kadapa District (Petitioner in W.P.No.16774 of 2009) M.Mallikarjuna Reddy S/o Tirupathi Reddy Field Assistant, Gram Panchayat, T.Challagirigela, Porumamilla Madal, Kadapa District (Petitioner in W.P.No.16775 of 2009) G.VenkataLaxmamma W/o Narayana Field Assistant, Gram Panchayat, Thammareddypally, Porumamilla Madal, Kadapa District (Petitioner in W.P.No.16776 of 2009) V.Krishnaiah S/o Krishnaiah Field Assistant, Gram Panchayat, T.Challagirigela, Porumamilla Madal, Kadapa District (Petitioner in W.P.No.16868 of 2009) …Petitioners A n d The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District and another ….Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Mr.D.BalakishanRao Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Smt.Ch.Vedavani Counsel for the respondent No.2 : G.P for Panchayatraj & Rural Dev. THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NOs.16773, 16774, 16775, 16776 AND 16868 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners herein are working as Field Assistants in different Gram Panchayats in Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District under the control of the respondents 1 and 2. These writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the show-cause notice dated 27.7.2009 issued by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Porumamilla Mandal, whereunder, the petitioners were called upon to explain the alleged irregularities specified therein, in discharging their duties and placing the petitioners under suspension till the enquiry is completed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders to the extent of suspending the petitioners from service are arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted since the alleged irregularities were based upon a report said to have been submitted long back in the month of October 2008. In support of his contention that the impugned action of the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the apex Court in H.L.Trehan and others vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.[1]. Having perused the material on record, I am unable to hold that the impugned action of the respondents is illegal on any ground whatsoever. As could be seen, under the impugned notice dated 27.7.2009 the petitioners were placed under suspension only as an interim measure pending final orders. May be that the impugned order is based upon a report submitted long back, however having regard to the nature of the allegations, the order of suspension cannot be held to be unwarranted or unjustified. It is nobody’s case that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. Hence, the interference by this Court at this stage is unwarranted. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have already submitted their explanations, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioners following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that in case the enquiry is not completed within the time fixed above, the impugned orders to the extent of suspending the petitioners pending enquiry shall stand set aside. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J Dt.17-08-2009 Note:-Issue C.C in three days (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NOs.16773, 16774, 16775, 16776 AND 16868 OF 2009 DATED : 17-08-2009 [1](1989)1 Supreme Court Cases 764