THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23974 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Sub-Engineer in Tsunduru Operation Circle of Guntur District. His wife committed suicide at Saluru of Vizianagaram District on 01.03.2011. On the basis of a suicide note, P.S. Saluru registered Crime No.26 of 2011 against the petitioner and some others and arrested him on 04.03.2011. The petitioner was released on bail on 25.03.2011 by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Saluru. Through proceedings, dated 30.06.2011, the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Guntur, respondent No.2 herein, placed the petitioner under suspension on the ground that he was in judicial custody between 04.03.2011 and 25.03.2011. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was living separately from his wife, so much so, proceedings were also initiated for restitution of conjugal rights. He contends that the petitioner was living at Guntur, whereas the suicide has taken place at Saluru about 400 k.ms. away and there was absolutely no basis to implicate his client. He further submits that the prosecution has already filed charge sheet and there is no point in suspending the petitioner at this stage, particularly when the alleged offence has nothing to do with the discharge of duties in the respondents’ organisation. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that once the petitioner was in judicial custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, the inevitable consequence is that he must be placed under suspension. He further submits that the case of the petitioner would be reviewed after the lapse of about six months. The Service Regulations that are applicable to the employees of the respondents mandate that whenever an employee is kept in judicial custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, he must be placed under suspension. This is so whether or not the offence pertains to discharge of official duties. In the instant case, the petitioner, no doubt, was arrested on 04.03.2011 and was in judicial custody till 24.03.2011. The fact, however, remains that by the time the petitioner was placed under suspension, the charge sheet was already filed. The intention in placing of an employee under suspension, whether in the course of disciplinary proceedings or on the basis of involvement in a crime, is to ensure that he does not tamper with the evidence or interfere with the enquiry. Once the enquiry in a departmental proceedings or the investigation in a criminal case, as the case may be, is concluded, the necessity to keep the employee under suspension ceases to exist. The continuance of employee under suspension in such cases would cause loss to the organisation, inasmuch as substantial amount of subsistence allowance has to be paid without extracting any work. At any rate, the crime alleged against the petitioner is totally unconcerned with the official duties. Left to themselves, the respondents did not initiate any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.08.2011 kdl