B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner while workirtg as Deputy executive Engineer in the Endowments department at Kakinada was subjected to a raid by the officials of the Anti-Corruption bureau on 4-7-1997. Certain documents pertaining to movable and immovable properties were seized from the residence of the petitioner. It is not necessary to notice the details of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Suffice it to notice that the anti-Corruption Bureau found the petitioner to have acquired disproportionate assets.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was transferred from Kakinada to Simhachalam of visakhapatnam District with effect from 13-6-1998.

( 3 ) THE Anti-Corruption Bureau issued notice to the petitioner on 7-11-1998 requiring his explanation in the matter for having assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The petitioner accordingly submitted his explanation, inter alia denying the allegations levelled against him. It is also not necessary to notice the details of explanation submitted by the petitioner in this regard. The Government issued proceedings dated 9-7-2001 asking the petitioner to submit a written statement to the articles of charges to which the petitioner submitted a representation on 8-8-2001 requesting the Government to supply certain documents relevant to the articles of charges. Be that as it may, the commissioner of Endowments passed orders dt. 27-9-2001 placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. The order passed by the Commissioner, endowments Department is self-explanatory.

( 4 ) THERE is no dispute whatsoever that the Government of Andhra Pradesh by its memo dt. 24-9-2001 requested the commissioner of Endowments Department to keep the petitioner under suspension immediately as per the rules in vogue.

( 5 ) IT is also required to notice that the Government by its order dt 12-3-2001 accorded sanction for prosecuting the petitioner in the court of competent jurisdiction. The Anti-Corruption Bureau having investigated the crime registered against the petitioner filed charge-sheet against the petitioner in the court of Special judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam on 22-6-2001.

( 6 ) THE petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Endowments, placing him under suspension in O. A. No. 7155 of 2001 in the Andhra Pradesh administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal after an elaborate consideration of the matter found the order of suspension passed by the commissioner of Endowments to be in order and accordingly dismissed the O. A. Hence this writ petition.

( 7 ) SRI Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tribunal committed an error in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of endowments. It is contended that an order of suspension pending enquiry can be passed only in cases where the Government servants are facing grave charges and in the public interest. The order has been passed in a very casual and mechanical manner and under the dictation of the Government as well as the Anti-Corruption Bureau. It is submitted that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner is totally vitiated for non-application of mind. Learned counsel levelled serious criticism against the impugned order contending that the power of suspension pending enquiry should be with reference to the immediate urgency of keeping the Government servant away from his place of work so that the evidence cannot be tampered with. The order of suspension has been passed against the petitioner after almost about a period of four years and therefore, the same is vitiated.

( 8 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Government has issued instructions in memo No. 554/serv. C/9b-6 G. A. Services-III department dt. 26-12-1994 laying guidelines for placing the officers involved in Tiap/ acb/disproportionate Assets cases under suspension. The order of suspension has been passed in accordance with those guidelines. Reliance is placed upon clause (iii) of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document