HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28234 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, 1st respondent herein. Till November 2009, he worked at Proddutur. Thereafter, he was transferred to Khazipet, Kadapa District. Based upon a news item published in Vaartha daily newspaper on 08-09-2010, alleging that irregularities have taken place in payment of amounts under the Housing Scheme known as “Integrated Housing Slum Development Programme”, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the 1st respondent through order dated 03-11-2010. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at no point of time, when the petitioner was functioning as Assistant Engineer at Proddutur, there were any irregularities against the petitioner. He contends that the news item was published on speculation and without even verifying the matter, the 1st respondent suspended the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not working at Proddutur and possibility of his tampering with the records in disciplinary proceedings is thereby avoided. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the allegation against the petitioner is rather serious and the order of suspension was passed to prevent the petitioner from meddling with the proposed enquiry. 4. Left to themselves, the respondents did not find any irregularity as to the functioning of the petitioner. It was only when a news item was published that the respondents became active. The item was published way back on 08-09-2010. In case there was any truth in it, they ought to have issued charge sheet by framing charges against the persons responsible for any irregularity. So far, nothing of that sort has taken place. It is only on the basis of telephonic instructions from the officials from Hyderabad that the order of suspension was passed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working at a different place. If the respondents are of the view that the petitioner is likely to interfere with the proposed enquiry, he can be shifted to a far off place. 5. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order suspension dated 03-11-2010 is set aside. It is left open to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and other persons for the irregularities, if any, and to transfer the petitioner to a far off place in the district. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 15, 2010. KTL