S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment dated 13-12-2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition, which was filed questioning the action of the respondents in suspending the petitioner- appellant pending enquiry, was dismissed in limine. The order or suspension dated 13-10-2000 passed by the Divisional manager, Eluru is to the following terms:"sri B. Satyanarayana, DPM. , dubacherla Series of Eluru Range, who was trapped by the ACB Officials while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 1,500-00 from sri T. Rambabu, Forest Contractor for showing official favour to issue Work completion Certificate of return of emd amounts deposited by the contractor is hereby kept under suspension with immediate effect. Hence, he is directed to hand over the charge of his plantation to Sri Mutyala venkateswar Rao, DPM. , immediately. Sri B. Satyanarayana, DPM will be paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension as per APFDC rules. Sri Mutyala Venkateswara Rao DPM, pullalapadu and Cheepurgudem Eps is hereby directed to take the charge of plantation under the control of Sri b. Satyanarayana, DPM. , immediately. He shall hold the additional charge till further orders. The TCR between them shall submit in duplicate. " ( 2 ) THE said order of suspension is based on the following radio message:"dated: 13-10-2000 refer Crime No. 5/acb - RCT EWG/ 2000 Under Section 7 of P. C. 1988 of ACB: Eluru Range: Eluru (.) On 13-10-2000 at 6-15 A. M. B. Satyanarayana Dy. Plantation manager, A. P. Forest Development corporation Limited, Doobacherla section W. G. District was successfully trapped at his Residence in pullalapadu Village when he demanded and Accepted Bribe amount of Rs. 1,500. 00 from the complainant T. Rambabu, Forest contractor for showing official favour to issue Work Completion Certificate for the Return of E. M. D. Amounts deposited by the Complainant at the time of Submission of Tenders on 8-5-2000 in the Office of the Dist. Manager, A. P. S. F. D. C. Eluru (.) The bribe amount of Rs. 1500. 1,500. 00 from the complainant T. Rambabu, Forest contractor for showing official favour to issue Work Completion Certificate for the Return of E. M. D. Amounts deposited by the Complainant at the time of Submission of Tenders on 8-5-2000 in the Office of the Dist. Manager, A. P. S. F. D. C. Eluru (.) The bribe amount of Rs. 1500. 00 which was placed on the Teapoy was Recovered at the Instance of the A. O. (.) The portion the Teapoy which Came into contact with the Tainted amount when Subjected to Sodium Carbonate solution Test Also Proved Positive (.) relevant Records were Seized (.) The a. O. was Arrested and Released on bail (.) the A. O. was Arrested and released on Bail (.) Preliminary Report follows. (.)" ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that having regard to the fact that a preliminary report was to follow the radio message, the order of suspension dated 13-10-2000 cannot be sustained having regard to the fact that the same has been passed without considering the preliminary report. According to the learned Counsel, the impugned order of suspension suffers from total non-application of mind on the part of the appropriate authority. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation on the other hand places before us Regulation No. 62 of A. P. Forest Development Corporation Limited staff Regulations, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations for the sake of brevity) which is to the following terms:"62. Suspension: an employee may be placed under suspension from service: 1. Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (a) Where in the opinion of the authority competent to place the employee under suspension, if he is engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the organisation; or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial. 1. An employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the authority competent to place him under suspension; (a) With effect from the date of his detention if he is detained in custody whether on criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding (48) hours. 1. An employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the authority competent to place him under suspension; (a) With effect from the date of his detention if he is detained in custody whether on criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding (48) hours. (b) With effect from the date of his conviction if in the event of conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding (48) hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed consequent to such conviction. " ( 5 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the State government has issued G. O. Ms. No. 220/ser. C/89-1, General administration (Services-C) Department, dated 8-3-1989, (hereinafter referred to as the G. O. for the sake of brevity) wherein inter alia it was directed that:" (A) In trap cases, the Govt. servant should be suspended immediately after the trap basing on the preliminary report of the A. C. B. (b) In disproportionate assets cases, the accused Officer need not be suspended immediately following the registration of the case. But he may be transferred to a far-off non-local post to avoid likelihood of his tampering with the records and influencing the witness. Attention is invited to Government Memo no. 1733/ser. C/67-2, General administration Department, dated 3-8-1967. (c) If, however, the ACB finds during investigation that there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused Officer has deliberately failed to co-operate with the Investigating Agency or that he is trying to tamper with the official records or influencing the witnesses or bringing pressure on the Investigating Officers, it is open to the Disciplinary Authority to place the accused Officer under suspension at that stage, based on the recommendation of the ACB to that effect. (d) In case other than those mentioned above, the accused Officer should be suspended when a charge-sheet is filed against him in the Court. (e) Where after investigation, it is decided to initiate regular departmental action for imposing any of the major penalties and charge Memo is served or the delinquent Government servant, alleging specific acts of corruption or gross misconduct involving moral turpitude, he may be suspended immediately after the charge Memo is served on him. " ( 6 ) HOWEVER, according to the learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation the G. O. has not been adopted by the respondentscorporation. " ( 6 ) HOWEVER, according to the learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation the G. O. has not been adopted by the respondentscorporation. ( 7 ) IN that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the aforementioned G. O. cannot be applied to the employees of the respondents-Corporation. As by reason of regulation 62 of the Regulations the appellant herein could be placed under suspension even during pendency of enquiry or appeal, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of suspension by the appropriate authority. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ( 9 ) WE hope and trust that having regard to the order of suspension passed as against the appellant, the enquiry would be completed within a reasonable time.