IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 9961 of 2008 Between: 1 The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad City. 2 The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Lakdikapool, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Mohd. Moinuddin, S/o. Late Fakeer Mohammed, S.B. Immigration Airport, Hyderabad (u/s.). .....RESPONDENT 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders in O.A.No.6788/2007 with VMA NO.12/2008 and C.A.NO.856/2007, dated 28.01.2008 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and erroneous and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.9961 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 28-1-2008 passed in O.A.No.6788 of 2007 with VMA No.12 of 2008 and C.A.No.856 of 2007 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding this writ petition are that the applicant - respondent herein was working as Sub- Inspector of Police. He was placed under suspension on 28-4-2007 on the allegation that while he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Immigration Branch, he had allowed eight ineligible passengers to go abroad from Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The respondent herein contended that he was placed under prolonged suspension without issuing charge memo. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions directed the petitioners herein to re-induct the applicant into service without prejudice to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that the allegation is serious and the respondent – applicant failed to perform his duty properly and as such, he was placed under suspension and the charge memo has already been issued to him, but he refused to receive the same. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the maximum period for which an employee can be kept under suspension is six months and it cannot be extended indefinitely. Learned counsel further contended that if an employee is under suspension or on leave or otherwise absent, the charge memo has to be communicated by registered post to the address as per service register. The petitioners cannot say that the respondent refused to receive the charge memo. 5. As far as possible, period of suspension cannot be beyond six months and during which time the disciplinary proceedings have to be concluded. In the instant case, the charge-memo has not been furnished to the delinquent official and he continues to be under suspension beyond the period of six months. Further, Rule 42 of CCA Rules prescribes that the charge-memo has to be communicated to the delinquent official by registered post in case he is on leave or under suspension. In this case, the Tribunal has recorded the finding that enquiry was not completed and no charge-memo was issued. In view of the above, the Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioners to re- induct the respondent/applicant into service, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. We do not find any infirmity with the impugned order of the Tribunal and we are not inclined to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 09-06-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}