IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7850 of 2009 Between: Peddoju Ramu, S/o. P. Govardhanachary @ Gopaiah, R/o. Type-II, 77 Block Quarter No. 383, CRPF, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2 Central Reserve Police Force, Rep by Inspector General of Police (Medical), Medical Supdt. CH, CRP Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RAMA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents:MR. A.SAMEER KUMAR REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 03.03.2009 issued by respondent No.2. The petitioner, a Head Constable of Central Reserve Police Force, is an accused in a criminal case registered on the complaint of his wife for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In connection with the said criminal case, the police arrested the petitioner on 17.02.2009. An order was evidently passed on 20.02.2009 declaring that the petitioner is deemed to have been placed under suspension in view of his being in police custody for more than 48 hours. Subsequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned proceedings, which are questioned in this writ petition. Heard Sri K.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Sameer Kumar Reddy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government, appearing for the respondents. Ordinarily, this Court seldom interferes with the orders of suspension. But, in the instant case, the suspension of the petitioner is not with reference to any misconduct allegedly committed in connection with the course of his employment. The sole ground on which he is placed under suspension is that he is the prime accused in the criminal case registered at the instance of his wife. In my considered view, keeping a public servant under suspension for unduly long time would only cause harm to public interest instead of serving the same, more so, when the reason for placing the employee under suspension is not attributable to his performance of duty or indulging in acts of misconduct in connection with performance of his duty. The respondents are therefore, required to keep this in mind in deciding to continue the suspension of the petitioner. If the criminal case pending against the petitioner is not disposed of within a reasonable time, his continued suspension would only result in wasting of public funds towards payment of subsistence allowance without availing his service. Therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to review proceedings, dated 03.03.2009 by taking a pragmatic view of the matter and in the light of the observations contained in this order, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.10291 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th APRIL, 2009. Note: issue c.c. in one week. B/o kvni