IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23133 of 2008 Between: Society for Poor Rural Education and Environment Development, H.No.1-1-135/1, Beside Rural Police Station, Station Road, Bhongir, Nalgonda District 508 116, Rep. by its President, Smt. Suvishna, W/o. Kumar, aged 45 Years. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Vigilance VII) Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director-General Anti Corruption Bureau, Mojam Jahi Market Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Collector & District Magistrate, Nalgonda. 4 Smt. Nedunoori Gayatri, W/o. S. Narasimha Rao, Bommalaramaram (M), Nalgonda District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus calling for the records relating to the issuance of impugned Memo No. 18623/Vig.VII(1)/2006-5, dated 01/02/2008 of the 1st respondent insofar as Paragraph -1 of the said Memo is concerned and further sought to be entrusted to the District Collector for departmental enquiry as arbitrary and illegal and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S. Satyam Reddy Counsel for Respondents 1 and 3: GP, REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr. V. Ravikiran Rao The Court made the following: Order: (Per Hon’ble The Chief Justice) Being aggrieved by an order dated 01-02-2008, passed by the Principal Secretary to Government in Revenue Vigilance Dept., being Memo No.18623/Vig. VII (1)/2006-5, this petition has been filed in public interest. By virtue of the impugned order, the District Collector, Nalgonda has been directed to reinstate Respondent No.4 into service and transfer her to a distant place to a non-focal post. The aforesaid administrative order has been challenged in this public interest litigation. In our opinion, it is for the respondent-Government to decide whether a person against whom some charge is leveled should be reinstated into service and transferred during pendency of departmental proceedings. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, especially in view of the fact that the Collector- Respondent No.3 has been directed to transfer Respondent No.4 to a distant place and give her posting to a non-focal post. The petition is therefore rejected. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. October 23, 2008 MRR