THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.9892 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O.Rt.No.33, Housing (VIG.CELL) Department, dated 30-01-2010 and the orders in Memorandum No.1778/Vig.Cel- A1/2009-5, dated 01-12-2010 continuing the petitioner under suspension on the ground of disproportionate of assets case as contrary to the policy decision of the Government laid down in Memo No.554/Ser.C/93-6, Genl. Admn. (Ser.C) Department, dated 26-12-1994 and also law laid down by this Court in W.P.No.14322 of 2007, dated 05-07-2007 and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service with all attendant benefits. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 16-07-1983 under the respondent corporation and thereafter promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 2004 and Executive Engineer in the year 2008. While so, on 07-05-2009, the Anti Corruption Bureau officials conducted a surprise check against him in respect of properties and prepared inventory list and found that an amount of Rs.86,23,039/- was declared as disproportionate assets. A notice was issued to him by the ACB authorities and he submitted a reply in respect of properties of his wife, two sons, daughter and his income separately. The major earnings of his wife were added treating them as his assets. He was arrested on 07-05-2009 in FIR No.13/ACD and was in judicial custody till 25-05-2009 and later he was enlarged on bail. He submitted his detailed reply to the ACB authorities. Basing on the recommendations of the ACB authorities, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.33 Housing (VIG.CELL) Department, dated 30- 01-2010 keeping him under suspension and the same was extended for a period of six months. The respondents have not filed charge sheet either before the Criminal Court or issued any charge memo initiating departmental proceedings. Even the Government has taken a policy decision that not to keep the Government servants under suspension in respect of disproportionate assets cases. Therefore, he is entitled to continue in service. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents filed detailed counter affidavit denying the averments in the petition. It is stated that the petitioners hails from a lower middle class agricultural family and the documents seized from various places disclose that he is in possession of assets worth Rs.86,23,039/- which are disproportionate to known sources of his income. The wife of the petitioner is house-wife and children are dependants. During the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner is in possession of assets worth Rs.93,14,202/- on his name and his family members during the check period from 16-07-1983 to 07-05-2009, whereas his income was Rs.49,15,485/- and the expenditure was Rs.42,24,322/-. Thus the petitioner is in possession of assets worth Rs.86,23,039/- which are disproportionate to known sources of his income. The investigation is under way and only draft report is prepared and it is under scrutiny in the office of Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, who is a necessary party for better adjudication of the case. The 1st respondent is empowered to place under suspension the accused officers who are either involved in criminal case under investigation or against whom the disciplinary action is contemplated. The petitioner was detained in custody for more than 48 hours and as such, he is deemed to have been under suspension from the date of his detention. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or enquiry. After receiving final report along with the recommendations of prosecution of individual in a court of law and disciplinary action etc., from Director General, ACB and also advice of A.P. Vigilance Commission, Hyderabad, Government will examine the matter and issue sanction orders for prosecution and as advised by A.P. Vigilance Commission to Director General, ACB and then ACB authorities will file charge sheet in a court of law. Hence, it prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suspension of an employee has to be reviewed for every six months and the last review was made on 30-06-2011 and thereafter, no review has been made, that as per G.O.Ms.No.480, G.A. (Ser-C) Dept., dated 07-09-1993, an outer limit be provided as two years from the date of suspension, failing which the public servant may have to be reinstated without prejudice to the proceedings being pursued, that it is not a case of non-cooperation by the petitioner and in pursuance of the notice issued by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner has given a detailed explanation and therefore, his case has to be considered. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that the entire investigation is completed and the report is under scrutiny by the Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, that there are allegations of serious mis-conduct against the petitioner and hence, there are no grounds to allow the writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that an employee can be suspended pending disciplinary proceedings when there is a serious mis- conduct alleged against him. Similarly, when the contemplation of enquiry also, an employee can be placed under suspension. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the outer limit of two years has been over, his case has not been considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.480, dated 07-09-1993. Clause (3) of the said G.O. reads thus: “An outer limit be provided as two years from the date of suspension, failing which the public servant may have to be reinstated without prejudice to the proceedings being pursued. However, in exceptional cases considering the gravity of the charges, one could be continued under suspension even beyond a period of two years, especially in cases where there is deliberate delay caused due to non-cooperation of the employee concerned” That aspect of the case has to be considered by the 1st respondent in accordance with the Government orders and service rules applicable to the petitioner. 7. Therefore, without adverting to the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate decision as to whether to continue the petitioner under suspension or to revoke the suspension order in accordance with rules and regulations and Government orders in force within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 08-07-2011 Hsd