K. Seethamma D/ O K Nagi Reddy v. .State Of Andhra Pradesh,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ***** Writ Petition No.25245 of 2015 Between K.Seethamma ... Petitioner and State of A.P., Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, PR & RD Dept., Secretariat Bldgs., Hyderabad;

and 2 others ... Respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 12-8-2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

Yes/No Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reports/Journals Yes/No Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.25245 of 2015

Order:

Heard Sri D.Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.S.R. Chandra Murthy, learned Special Counsel for the 3rd respondent-MGNREGS.

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Additional Programme Officer on 24-8-2007 in the 3rd respondent-MGNREGS in Kurnool district and thereafter, on 02-7-2013, she was transferred and posted at Nandavaram Mandal in Kurnool district. Initially, she was appointed for a period of 2 years and thereafter, her services were continued till she was suspended by the order dated 30-12-2014. It is submitted by the petitioner that the impugned order was issued basing on a news item published in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily and the allegations levelled against her are false. It is further submitted that without conducting any preliminary enquiry and without giving any show cause notice, the petitioner was illegally suspended basing on the news item published in the Newspaper.

3. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Special Counsel for the 3rd respondent that a show cause was issued, the petitioner submitted her explanation, attended the hearing in the course of enquiry and therefore, the order of suspension was proper.

4. In any event, since the order impugned is an order of suspension pending enquiry, I am not inclined to examine the merits of the order. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, directing the 3rd respondent-Project Director to complete enquiry and pass final orders within a period of 4 (four) weeks, failing which the order of

suspension dated 30-12-2014 passed against the petitioner shall stand revoked. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.

___________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J.

12th August, 2015.

Ak HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.25245 of 2015

12th August, 2015.

(Ak)