HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITON No.26099 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Project Manager under the project, viz., Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty. He was issued a memo, dated 14-11-2010, by the 2nd respondent requiring him to explain about the allegation as to misappropriation of Rs.15,000/-. Stating that the petitioner did not submit any explanation, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 01-12-2010, placing the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner further contends that he is not being paid the subsistence allowance. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development. 3. Several projects similar to the one mentioned above, viz., Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty were launched by the Government in the recent past. Whatever be the end result, the employees engaged in such programs at various levels are effectively reducing their poverty. Instances of allegation of mis-appropriation are galore and so far, the authorities have not chosen to have a perfect auditing system. Everything is pushed under the carpet in the name of social audit and it is becoming handy for those who can manage with the persons concerned. 4. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 01-12-2010. It is not known as to whether any charge sheet was issued or further enquiry was conducted. If the allegation of the petitioner that he is not being paid the subsistence allowance is true, it would amount to gross violation of the relevant rules on the part of the 2nd respondent. He cannot just wash off his hands by placing the petitioner under suspension. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that: a. The 2nd respondent shall forthwith release the arrears of subsistence allowance to the petitioner, if not already paid, within a period of four (4) weeks from today and continue to pay the substance allowance till the proceedings are concluded. b. The 2nd respondent shall also conclude the disciplinary proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner within a period of two (2) months and if the proceedings are either not initiated or not concluded by that date, he shall be under obligation to reinstate the petitioner into service. 6. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J September 19, 2011. KTL