THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.8737 OF 2011 DATED: 13-04-2011. Between K.Kalyana Chakravarthy … Petitioner And 1.The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District and three others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.8737 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the petitioner vide proceedings No.TSC/ATP/00002, dated 24-11-2010 without giving any opportunity to represent his case as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the proceedings No.TSC/ATP/00002, dated 24-11-2010 issued by the 2nd respondent. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant in the office of the 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent on 01-04-2007 and since then, he was discharging his duties. His duty is to prepare the work in the Computer. Work was allotted to their village in Work ID No. 23, Rock Fill and after measurements of earth work 325.25, he completed work up to 395.75 and worked in addition to the work allotted to his village of 70.2 and he done extra work of Rs.5,704/- and the same was disbursed to the labourers. Likewise, he worked work ID Nos.10727, 0725 and 3956 and completed the entire work, which was allotted to his village. The quality control team inspected the work done by him. As per the M. Book, the work done by him was 3956.48 meters and the report of the quality control is 2016.84, which is in correct. A show cause notice was issued to him asking him to explain the irregularities committed by him and he gave explanation on 20-12-2010. On the same day, the 2nd respondent suspended him from discharging his duties without conducting any enquiry and giving any opportunity to the petitioner. The suspension order is in violation of rules laid down in GOMs.No.98 PR & RD department, dated 09-03-2010. In W.P.31772 of 2010, this Court directed to follow certain guidelines issued by this Court and follow the circular, dated 27-01-2010 and rules laid own in G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 09-03-2010 for the purpose of conducting enquiry. Hence, the writ petition. 3. It is well settled that an order of interim suspension can be passed against the employee while an enquiry is pending into his conduct, subject to statutory provisions governing his service provide for such punishment. Normally the Court will not interfere with orders of suspension pending enquiry unless there is a mala fide exercise of power. Abuse or improper use of power is mala fide exercise of power. Mala fides will vitiate the most solemn proceedings. No allegations are imputed against the authority so as to infer that the order of suspension is bad for want of necessary care and caution or is passed for some purpose other than the one for which it could have been made. The allegation leveled against the petitioner is that his services were placed with the rural development for implementation of various rural development programmes which aim at providing livelihood opportunities to the poorest of poor, that in the course monitoring through inspection conducted by social audit team, it came to light that the petitioner allegedly committed certain irregularities/lapses prima facie involving misappropriation of public funds along with deficiency in services, leading to loss of public confidence and depriving the poorest of the poor of the benefit of the rural development programmes. The competent authority basing on subjecting observations rightly placed him under suspension under no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a mala fide exercise of power. It seems Enquiry Officer was appointed and he has to conduct regular departmental enquiry as per the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the suspension order. However, the 2nd respondent is directed to complete the enquiry as early as possible. It is needless to observe that any observation made in this order, shall not be construed as a finding of this Court. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 13-04-2011 Hsd