- (1.) 1. This is an application challenging the order of suspension dt. 25-8-69. What happened in the case was that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in 1948 in the Revenue unit at Cuddapah. He says that he was transferred to Panchayat Raj Service on 26-3-1961. He further alleges that he exercised his option in 1963 and consequently was absorbed in the Pancbayat Raj service on 1-8-63. On 31-8-64. in view of the delimitation of blocks, the Vempalli Panchayat Samithi was abolished. He was, however not immediately given any posting He therefore preferred an appeal to the Secretary. In the meanwhile, however, he was given a posting as Revenue Inspector. On 1-2-1966 he was suspended on the allegation that when he was working as L D. C. in Vempalli Panchayat Samitbi, there has been misappropriation. Along with him, the Block Development Officer and several other employees were also suspended. On a revision made by the Block Development Officer, bis suspension order was revoked. The petitioner and others again represented to the Government, and as a result the Government by its order dt 17-11-1967 revoked the suspension order of the petitioner. He was given posting in Srikakulam district but later on at Chittoor and was posted on 2-8-68 He, however, has been again suspended on the same charges on 25-8-1969.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that although the alleged misappropriation took place in 1963-64 and originally the petitioner was suspended on 1-2-1966, so far no charges are framed against him nor any enquiry made. He has made that specific allegation in the Writ petition and the affidavit. This specific allegation has not been traversed by the Government in its counter The learned Government Pleader is not in a position to categorically state that the charges were framed and served upon the petitioner or to state as to at what stage the enquiry is pending. It is now well settled that the authority cannot keep the employee in suspension while the power of suspension is to be exercised reasonably and for a specific purpose.
(3.) The authority cannot suspend the employee without framing the charge for several years. In this case, the previous suspension was revoked by the Government even accord ng to the counter on the ground that the enquiry was likelv to take considerable time. That seems to be so even now. In this case, although the second suspension order was passed on 25-8-69, the enquiry does not seem to have made any progress. I am, therefore, satisfied that the petitioner cannot be kept on suspension indefinitely. I am well supported in my view by a Decision of the Madras High Court in State v. K. Joseph In all such cases, where the employee is suspended, the charges must be framed within reasonable time followed by enquiry.;