THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.19613 of 2009 ORDER: (per VE, J) This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 29.04.2009, passed in O.A.No.5052 of 2009, whereby the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), dismissed the O.A., while confirming the proceedings, dated 11.07.2008, issued by the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Hyderabad, placing the petitioner under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner joined in service as Junior Assistant in Panchayat Raj Department in 1986. He was promoted as Executive Officer (Grade-II) in 1989 and thereafter, as Panchayat Secretary and as Executive Officer (Grade-I) in 2007. While so, on 07.07.2008, in a trap conducted by the authorities of the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) in the office of the petitioner, he was caught red handed, when he was demanding a sum of Rs.500/- from the complainant for doing official favour. Based on the said information sent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings, dated 11.07.2008 issued by the third respondent. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the above O.A. before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the ACB conducted raid on 07.07.2008 in the office of the petitioner, no departmental proceedings have been initiated even after lapse of one year. He also submits that as per memo No. 623/Spl.C/A1/2008-1, dated 15.10.2008, issued by the Government, General Administration (SPL.C) Department, the investigation in respect of the registered cases shall be completed within six months and after receipt of final report of the investigating agency, the Department concerned shall further examine the case within one month and take a decision as to entrust the case either for prosecution or for departmental action or for placing the accused on his defence before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings or for closure of the case and seek the advice of the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission. We are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the validity of the memo issued by the Government and the discretion left over to the department concerned in deferring the case as per their whims and fancies, but we are concerned only with the question as to whether the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the O.A. is justified or not. Admittedly, the ACB conducted raid on 07.07.2008 in the office of the petitioner. We are of the prima facie opinion that the above said memo, dated 15.10.2008 issued by the Government overrides the statute. We are also of the opinion that the Government has to deal with the corruption cases firmly and uniformly and not selectively, for building up faith in the public about functioning of the good governance. Suspension of pending enquiry is not a measure of punishment, and as there was demand and acceptance of Rs.500/- by the petitioner, the third respondent suspended him vide proceedings, dated 11.07.2008. Therefore, the action of the third respondent in suspending the petitioner pending disciplinary proceedings cannot be said to be illegal and unwarranted, and the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, the subsistence allowance shall be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J 16th SEPTEMBER, 2009. ___________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J kvni