IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18527 of 2008 Between: Mr. A.V. Ranga Reddy, S/o. Sri A. Malla Reddy, C/o. A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions society School/Junior College, Ghanpur, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep. byits Secretary. 2 The Chairman, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Insitutions Society, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh,] Rep. byits Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 an order direction or writ Particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the proceedings Rc.No. CO.1/Prls.21263/2008 dated 29-1-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate me into service with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Teacher in the year 1984 in A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society and from 1995 onwards, he has been functioning as Principal. Through order, dated 29.01.2008, the Secretary of the Society placed the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry into the charges. The basis for placing the petitioner was also mentioned. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension on several grounds. He contends that initially an eﬀort was made by the A.C.B. to ﬁnd some ground and a notice was issued on 06.05.2008. It is stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 19.05.2008 and since the respondents found no basis to proceed against him, the impugned order was issued. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Durga Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The suspension ordered against the petitioner is, pending enquiry, and is in contemplation of, disciplinary proceedings. It is not as if that the order of suspension was issued by an authority not vested with the power, or that no reasons were stated therein. Though the deﬁnite and clear charges were not framed against the petitioner as yet, certain reasons, as constituting the basis for proceeding against the petitioner, are mentioned in the impugned order. The truth or otherwise of the allegations needs to be determined in the departmental enquiry. Nearly seven months have elapsed ever since the petitioner was placed under suspension. It is stated that even charge sheet was not issued to him. The respondents cannot remain silent, as having placed the petitioner under suspension. Such indiﬀerence is prone to rendering the suspension itself, motivated, or baseless. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall commence the disciplinary proceedings, if they so wish, forthwith and conclude them, if initiated, within three months from today. In case the proceedings are not initiated or concluded as indicate above, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach this Court for necessary directions. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.08.2008. Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl