E.Venkata Ramana v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8119 OF 2018 O R D E R :

This petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension vide impugned proceedings No.36/2017-APE (DWMA)-DWMAKRNL, dated 02.02.2018, without specifying the irregularities/lapses on the part of the petitioner, only basing on the report of the Social Audit, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are as vague as can be; and that there is no specific allegation which goes to show that the impugned proceedings are issued without application of mind entailing severe consequence of suspension pending enquiry. He also submits that after writ petition is filed charge memo was issued to petitioner on 14.03.2018 wherein allegations are made against the petitioner in respect of issues prior to his joining at that place. Heard Sri MSR.Chandramurthy who submits that it is only suspension pending enquiry; that the truth or otherwise of the allegations will be gone into enquiry.

It is to be seen that ordinarily, this Court will not interdict with the orders of suspension pending enquiry, unless it lacks in jurisdiction. But, in this case it is not the case of the petitioner that

the respondent authorities lack in jurisdiction in issuing the impugned proceedings. Since petitioner was already issued charge memo, it is open for the petitioner to raise all his objections which are raised herein and the competent authority is to consider those objections and conclude the enquiry, as per Rules, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 21.03.2018 t k.