IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 469 of 2009 Between: M.Ranga Swamy S/o.M.Rangaiah R/o.Krishnagiri, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director, 3- 6-184, Urdugalli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer, Incharge Kurnool District, O/o. A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Kurnool. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order of suspension passed in Proceedings No.Vig(3)/11832/KRL/2008, dated 02.01.2009 issued by 1st respondent through 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by setting aside the impugned order, and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.U.M.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by M.Ranga Swamy assailing the order of suspension in proceedings No.Vig(3)/11832/KRL/2008, dated 2.1.2009. The petitioner was an Assistant Engineer (Housing) Krishnagiri Mandal, Kurnool District in the first respondent- Corporation. He joined in the first respondent-Corporation in the year 1986 as Work Inspector at Giddalur of Prakasam District. In the year 2006, the Government started construction of houses for the poor and down trodden people in the State under Indiramma Housing Scheme in large scale. The respondent-Corporation has allotted 3,805 houses in Indiramma Phase-I, 2845 houses in Phase-II and 2672 houses in Phase-III for construction in Krishnagiri Mandal of Kurnool District. On noticing misappropriation of the funds, the Managing Director of 1st respondent Corporation issued proceedings dated 2.1.2009 placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. The proceedings are under challenge in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are motivated and mala fide. The suspension order details irregularities in the construction of houses. In that view of the matter, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order suspending the petitioner pending enquiry. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _________ 20-1-2009 rkk