JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner while working as an Upper Division Clerk, Sri Sarvodaya College, Nellore through proceedings dated September 9, 1987 was kept under suspension pending enquiry into charges of misappropriation of huge funds and fabrication of the records. According to the petitioner, though an enquiry was initiated, charge-sheet was served and explanation was submitted on September II, 1987, it was not completed within the period of two months from the above date nor an order was obtained from the authorised officer extending it for a further period of two months. Therefore he seeks to quash the order dated September 9, 1987 and a consequential direction for his reinstatement into service.

2. From the above averments, we can conclude that the petitioner, while working in an aided college as Upper Division Clerk, has been kept under suspension on the allegation that he committed misappropriation and fabrication of the records. The gamut of operation relating to disciplinary action against an employee working in aided educational institutions has been covered by Chapter XIV of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act (Act I of 1982) for short, “the Act”. Section 79 deals with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension, etc. of employees of private institutions. Sub-section (1) provides that no teacher or member of the non teaching staff employed in any private institution shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Sub-section (2) thereof enjoins thus: “An enquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of charges against the employee.” It is stated that charges have been served on September 11, 1987 and therefore the enquiry shall be completed within a period of two months from the aforesaid date. Sub-section 3 (a) thereof postulates that no employee shall be placed under suspension except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct of such employee is contemplated. Thereby it is clear that the management of a private educational institution shall not, normally, place an employee under suspension except when there are charges of gross misconduct against such an employee and an enquiry into those charges is contemplated. Clanse (b) of sub-section (3) provides that “No such suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months” from the date cf suspension and if such inquiry is not started and completed within that period, “such employee shall, without perjudice to the enquiry, be deemed to have been restored as employee”; provided that the competent authority may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing extend the said period of two months for a further period not exceeding two months, if in the opinion of such authority the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly attributable to such employee, Under sub-section (4), every Such employee as is placed under suspension under sub-section (3) shall be paid subsistence allowance at such rates as may be prescribed during the period of his suspension. (Sub-section (5) is not relevant. Hence omitted).

3. Thus, it could be seen that, except for gross misconduct, that too when an inquiry into it is contemplated, an employee shall not be placed under suspension. Thereby the legislative animation is made explicit that the exercise of power of suspension would not normally be resorted to unless there is a gross misconduct on the part of an employee and an enquiry is contemplated in that regard, The word “shall” used in Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 79 would thus render a mandatory duty on the employer to intelligently exercise the power with circumspection on the grounds on which he/it wants to keep the employee under suspension. But such a suspension shall not remain in force for mo