HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.21535 of 2025

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the petitioner under suspension beyond the prescribed period of two years with effect from 02.05.2023 pursuant to Memo No.

COM(HRD)/GM(Per.)/ASIDC/PO(DC-I)/126-C5/2023-

1, dated 09.05.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.86 GAD, dated 08.03.1994, besides being violative of Article 14, 16, 19(1)(G), 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently, direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service the interest of justice and pass...”

2. Heard Sri N. Manohar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Services – II appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as an Additional Assistant Engineer in the respondent - Company, the 2^nd respondent had issued an impugned order vide Memo No. COM(HRD) / GM(Per.) /ASIDC / PO(DC-I) / 126-C5/ 2023-1, dated 09.05.2023, placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from 02.05.2023 on the ground that he had allegedly demanded and accepted bribe. Consequently, a case in FIR No.06/RCT-CR-2/2023, dated 02.05.2023 was registered against the petitioner by the ACB Officials and no charge sheet is filed as on date.

4. Learned counsel further submits that even after lapse of two years, no steps were taken by the respondents to review the impugned suspension order. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.86 General Administration (Ser.C), dated 08.03.1994 issued by the Government, the orders of the suspension shall have to be reviewed at the end of every six months and the reviewing authority should take a decision regarding the continuance or otherwise of the employee concerned under suspension. Hence, learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the respondents to review the suspension order of the petitioner, dated 09.05.2023 and to reinstate the petitioner into service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court, dated 29.02.2024 in W.P.No.5069 of 2024, and prays this Court to pass a similar order in the present writ petition also.

6. The said submission is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for respondents.

7. The relevant portion of the order dated 29.02.2024 in W.P.No.5069 of 2024, is extracted hereunder:

“5. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.5 to review the suspension order of the petitioner, dated 09.03.2023 as per G.O.Ms.No.86 General Administration (Ser.C), dated 08.03.1994 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner..”

8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, and for the reasons alike in the order dated 29.02.2024 in W.P.No.5069 of

2024, without going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to review the suspension order of the petitioner, dated 09.05.2023 as per G.O.Ms.No.86 General Administration (Ser.C), dated 08.03.1994 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the