IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16477 of 1999 Between: K.Srirama Murthy, S/o. Varha Narshima Murty, Office of Zonal Manger, A.P.I.I.C., Visakhapatnam, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.,Industrial Infrastucture Copration Ltd., ( A Government of Andhra Pradesh Undertaking), Rep.by its Execitive Director (Finance), Parisam Bhavan, Fathe-Maidan , Hyderabad. 2 A.P.Industrial Infrastucture Copration Ltd., Visakhpatnam. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Certiiorari or any other appropriate Writ and quash the proceedings of the First Respondent bearing No.9918/PW/APIIC/E3/98 dt 17-7-99 purporting to place the petitioner in suspension and direct the respondent to grant all consequential benefits to the Petitioner and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.RAMABHOOPAL REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed by an Assistant working in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam, challenging the order, dated 17.7.1999, passed in Proceedings No.9918/PW/APIIC/ E3/88. 2. By the aforesaid order, on the ground that the petitioner was negligent in attending to his office, he was placed under suspension, invoking powers under Regulation 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. I have perused the copy of the Regulations. Regulation 34 empowers the employer to place the employee under suspension, pending inquiry. At the stage of admission of this writ petition, this Court suspended the order of suspension by an order dated 5th August 1999 and the said order continued all along for the last about ten years. 3. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. In the absence of any counter affidavit, it is also not known as to whether any further inquiry is conducted and any final orders are passed. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of keeping it open to the respondents to proceed with inquiry in accordance with law, if not already conducted and pass final orders. Further, it is ordered that the order impugned shall remain suspended till appropriate final orders are passed in the matter, if not already passed. 5. Subject to above directions, the writ petition shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 21st January 2009. ajr