THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 3872 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.39/TA/Admn/A1/2008 dated 18.2.2008 of the 1st respondent, whereunder the petitioner was kept under suspension pending enquiry into certain allegations made against him, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It appears, petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in Telugu Academy Regional Centre at Visakhapatnam. While that being so, he was placed under suspension on 18.2.2008 for the misconduct of alleged ﬁnancial irregularities detected for the ﬁnancial year 2005- 06 by the Audit party. Further, an enquiry oﬃcer was also appointed on 18.3.2008. On 19.3.2008, petitioner is said to have been issued with a charge sheet asking him to explain as to why action should not be initiated for the misconduct alleged. The petitioner submitted his explanation raising various objections for and in conducting enquiry. On perusal of the objections, charges were dropped on 11.9.2008. Again, a show-cause notice was issued on 12.9.2008 asking for explanation of the petitioner for certain irregularities that happened during the year 2005- 06, which are said to have been detected by the Audit party. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was working at Telugu Academy Regional Centre, Tirupathi and he was transferred to Telugu Academy Regional Centre, Visakhapatnam on 28.3.2007 and he joined at Visakhapatnam on 12.4.2007. The impugned order of suspension was issued on 18.2.2008. Further, it is contended, that the irregularities if any, committed by the petitioner are all matter of record, and no further evidence needs to be collected nor there is any scope for the petitioner to tamper with the records, as they are at Tirupathi and in the custody of the disciplinary authority; therefore, no public interest is involved for suspending the petitioner from service pending ﬁnalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also contended that nothing tangible happened in the enquiry till date though it is more than eight months since the petitioner was suspended from service. On the other hand, Sri J. Sudheer, learned Special Government pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the respondents, contended that there is any amount of material available for the purpose of suspending the petitioner from service and, in fact, a criminal case was registered against him, he was arrested and was put behind the bars for three days. He further contended that it is true that the petitioner was suspended after having been transferred to Visakhapatnam. Further, though an enquiry oﬃcer was appointed and charge sheet was issued, in view of certain objections raised by the petitioner, the same was dropped on 11.9.2008 and fresh show-cause notice was issued on 12.9.2008 asking him to submit his explanation. May be this is in the nature of preliminary enquiry, but still, it cannot be said that no enquiry has been commenced and nothing tangible happened in the matter. It all depends upon the nature of the charges that requires to be gone into in a case like this and suspending the petitioner cannot be said to be not in the public interest. May be the records are not amenable to the petitioner and the petitioner may not be able to inﬂuence anybody since everything is on record, but that itself does not mean that the respondents could not have suspended the petitioner from service pending enquiry into the matter. This being a very serious matter, normally the Courts would not interfere with the same. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The facts are not much in dispute. The alleged misconduct relates to the ﬁnancial year 2005-06, as per the irregularities pointed out by the Audit party while the petitioner was working in Telugu Academy Regional Centre, Tirupathi. It seems, he was transferred after sensing certain irregularities said to have been committed by him, on 28.3.2007 to Visakhapatnam and he reported to duty on 12.4.2007. Almost 10 months thereafter, he was placed under suspension on 18.2.2008 on the ground that there are certain irregularities committed by him for the ﬁnancial year 2005-06 when he worked as Senior Assistant at Telugu Academy Regional Centre, Tirupathi. Generally speaking, disciplinary proceedings would proceed after a preliminary enquiry is conducted, delinquent oﬃcer is suspended from service, charges are framed and explanation is called for. In this case, no such procedure was followed. Directly, on 18.3.2008 an enquiry oﬃcer was appointed, thereafter a charge sheet was issued on 19.3.2008 seeking explanation of the petitioner. When the petitioner submitted his explanation raising objections for issuing the charge sheet etc., on 9.5.2008, the proceedings were dropped on 11.9.2008 reserving right to conduct further proceedings. Immediately, on 12.9.2008 itself a show-cause notice was issued asking the petitioner to submit his explanation. This is also not in the shape of regular enquiry but a preliminary enquiry. Generally speaking, no explanation needs to be asked in the preliminary proceedings. All this would show that without framing a deﬁnite charge and coming to the conclusion as to conducting of an enquiry, the respondents have spent more than eight months and when the petitioner pointed out certain objections, they have dropped the enquiry and started again a preliminary enquiry. They could have issued a regular charge sheet asking the explanation of the petitioner and if the explanation oﬀered by the petitioner was not satisfactory, they could have appointed an enquiry oﬃcer and proceeded with the matter. But, in this case, the respondents have put the cart before the horse. Of course, this is not a matter for consideration, but it deﬁnitely shows that the respondents have not applied their mind even for basic things in conducting a domestic enquiry. As of today, no deﬁnite charges have been framed though it is more than eight months now since the petitioner is under suspension. Looking from a diﬀerent angle, the alleged misconduct relates to the ﬁnancial year 2005-06 which came to light after the report of the Audit party. The petitioner was transferred to Visakhapatnam on 28.3.2007 and ten months thereafter i.e. on 18.2.2008 he was suspended and nothing tangible has come up till date, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This shows that the respondents are adopting some trial and error methods for the purpose of conducting enquiry. Since the alleged misconduct relates to commission of certain irregularities by the petitioner for the ﬁnancial year 2005-06 and the same is a matter of record and no further evidence needs to be collected and there is no scope for the petitioner to tamper with the records or inﬂuence the witnesses, if any, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, that even though the petitioner is staying in Visakhapatnam and he has no access to the records and there is no scope for tampering with the record or inﬂuencing the witnesses, still, as the misconduct is serious, the petitioner needs to be kept under suspension. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, it can be said that the respondents have not come to the deﬁnite conclusion as of now and nothing tangible has happened, till date, in the matter. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the suspension of the petitioner from service cannot be said to be in the public interest, at this stage. Therefore, the impugned order of suspension dated 18.2.2008 is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, forthwith. However, this will not preclude the respondents from passing an order of suspension, if necessary, after the preliminary enquiry is conducted and definite charges are framed against the petitioner. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 31-10-2008. MVB.