ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 herein in issuing impugned proceedings dated 29.11.2021 vide Roc.No. 482911/2020/E3 suspending petitioner from the service with effect from date of detention, i.e 24.05.2021 in terms of sub rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and shall remain under suspension until the termination of proceedings related to the criminal Charges, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders…….” 2. The precise case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Ward Amenities Secretary (Grade-II) by the Regional Level Committee as per proceedings vide Roc.No. 25919/2019/A-1, dated 01.11.2019 by the 3rd respondent and further the petitioner was reported before the 4th respondent on deputation. While he was working in the Housing Corporation Limited, a complaint was made by the Degala Vijaya Durga on 09.05.2021 and registered a case in Crime No.128 of 2021 of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur against the petitioner alleging that the sister of the complainant Degala Siva Kumari, Mahila Police, Srinivasarao Pet Sachivalayam, Guntur has committed suicide by hanging in her relatives room. The petitioner was remanded on 24.05.2021 for judicial custody and released on bail on 26.07.2021 and the same was informed to the Project Director. But the Deputy Executive Engineer (H), APSHC, Guntur West Constituency issued proceedings dated 28.07.2021 relieving the petitioner and directed to report to the respective secretariats and inform to the Municipal Commissioner, Guntur, wherein the petitioner was shown as absconded from duties. After enlarged on bail on 26.07.2021, the 4th respondent permitted to join the duty and the petitioner joined the duty on 11.08.2021. After enlarged on bail on 26.07.2021, the 4th respondent permitted to join the duty and the petitioner joined the duty on 11.08.2021. Subsequently, the 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 29.11.2021 suspending the petitioner from the service with effect from the date of detention i.e 24.05.2021 in terms of Rule 8(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 ( in short ‘the Rules’) and shall remain under suspension until the termination proceedings related to the criminal charges. Therefore, the petitioner questioned that the 4th respondent is not competent authority to issue termination proceedings as he was appointed by the 3rd respondent. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. Heard Mr. Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader, Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Mr. K. Sridhar Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the petitioner was falsely implicated the criminal case in Crime No.128 of 2021 of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur and the impugned order has been passed mechanically without issuing any show cause notice and suspending the petitioner from services, even without initiating disciplinary proceedings is highly illegal and arbitrary. The retrospective suspension is bad in law. Hence the petitioner is requested the respondents for review the Suspension Order and to pay subsistence allowance as per the rules. But the respondents highhandedly recovered the amounts from the petitioner by showing the retrospective Suspension Order, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, requested to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that the 4th respondent came to know about the incident only after receiving a letter from the concerned police station as he was under deputation with the A.P.Housing Corporation under the Chairmanship of the 5th respondent. The petitioner was arrested and released on bail, which was not informed either to the parent department or to the department to which he was deputed. As per his appointment order he is liable to be discharged without giving any notice. The petitioner was arrested and released on bail, which was not informed either to the parent department or to the department to which he was deputed. As per his appointment order he is liable to be discharged without giving any notice. The petitioner has submitted a leave application seeking extraordinary leave stating that due to extraordinary problematic conditions in his personal life during that period. The petitioner wilfully did not informed his arrest to the respondent corporation and kept the 4th respondent in dark with a malafide intention. The Station House Officer, Kothapet Police Station, Guntur Urban has addressed a letter to the Guntur Municipal Corporation requesting him to place the petitioner under suspension and take disciplinary action against the petitioner as he was involved in criminal case. The respondent corporation has issued proceedings dated 29.11.2021, the petitioner is deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention i.e 24.05.2021 in terms of Rule 8(2) of the Rules and shall remain under suspension until the termination of proceedings related to the criminal charges and the 4th respondent empowered to suspend him as per G.O.Ms.No.285, dated 07.11.2019. The petitioner is not entitled to any benefits including subsistence allowances as he was appointed on temporary basis on consolidated payment. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has appointed to a permanent post by the Regional Level committee and the 3rd respondent posted the petitioner as Ward Amenities Secretary (Grade-II) and issued proceedings and further directed him to work on deputation in 4th respondent. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 25.06.2022 for declaration and regularization of services of Ward Secretaries and others in the department. The respondents admitted that the petitioner was suspended in terms of the Rules and denied the subsistence allowance. Unfortunately during probationary period, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner by the defacto complainant for demanding money. The respondents have not issued any proceedings for conducting disciplinary proceedings, instead they have simply suspended the services of the petitioner till termination of Criminal Proceedings, which is grossly violating rules and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. The respondents have not issued any proceedings for conducting disciplinary proceedings, instead they have simply suspended the services of the petitioner till termination of Criminal Proceedings, which is grossly violating rules and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Khem Chand v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1963 SC 687 ”, wherein it was held as follows:- “Effect of order of suspension: An order of suspension of a government servant does not put an end to his service under the Government. He continues to be a member of the service inspite of the order of suspension. The real effect of the order of suspension is that though he continues to be a member of the Government service he is not permitted to work, and further, during the period of his suspension he is paid only some allowance- generally called “subsistence allowance”. @ Page SC 688 Further, he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “P.L.Shah v. Union of India and Another”, (1989) 1 SCC 546 , wherein it was held as follows:- “6. An order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. Such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in the public interest and also in the interest of the government servant concerned.” Further, he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Uco Bank and Others v. Rajendra Shankar Shukla, (2018) 14 SCC 92 ”, wherein it was held as follows:- “16. Finally, we may also draw attention to an unreported decision of this Court in Uco Bank v. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade, (2018) 14 SCC 98 . In this decision, the Court considered the provisions of the Regulations that we are concerned with and held: “The sum and substance of these Regulations in that even though a departmental enquiry instituted against an officer employee before his retirement can continue even after his retirement, none of the substantive dismissal from service, can be imposed on an officer employee after his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent from service, who had superannuated on 31.12.1993 was ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction and the High Court did not commit any error by setting aside the same”. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in “Registrar Co-operative Society N.V.Natarajan Maligai and Others v. M. Elango, 2020 LawSuit (Mad) 3921”, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench held as follows:- “32. The underlying principle for making payment of subsistence allowance is to allow an individual to sustain himself. In the present context of the suspension of an employee, one has to keep in mind that services of an employee have not been snapped and the employer-employee relationship during suspension continues to subsist. There is a possibility of the employee being exonerated and he may in such circumstances be entitled to his enter emoluments of the said period. On the other hand, an employee can be found partially guilty and the employer may choose to deduct part of the emoluments by imposing a condition that the employee would not be entitled to any further emoluments, apart from what he has received during his period of suspension. It is, therefore, the discretion of the employer according to the Bye-Laws and Rules applicable, but, at the same time, it is the right of sustenance of an employee to receive subsistence allowance.” 9. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the light of the decisions supra, the petitioner is entitled to claim relief as claimed for. 10. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition in the light of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Zakir Hussain”, (2005) 3 CLR 424, wherein it was discussed as follows:- 5..... 1. That the dispute between the parties being an industrial dispute, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit; 2. That the respondent was appointed on Probation and the services were terminated during the period of Probation; it was not obligatory on the part of the Corporation to hold an enquiry before terminating the services; 3. 1. That the dispute between the parties being an industrial dispute, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit; 2. That the respondent was appointed on Probation and the services were terminated during the period of Probation; it was not obligatory on the part of the Corporation to hold an enquiry before terminating the services; 3. That the respondent was only an employee of the Corporation and not a Government Servant and has got no protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India; 4. That the respondent was not entitled to back wages on the principle of “No Work, No Pay”. 11. However, this Court perused the material available on record, it appears that the petitioner is under probation period, during probation period, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner. Consequently, the respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 29.11.2021 suspended the petitioner with effect from the date of detention i.e 24.05.2021 in terms of subrule (2) of rule 8 of the Rules and shall remain under suspension until the termination of proceedings related to the criminal charges. For which, no enquiry has been conducted so far till date and no steps had been taken with regard to framing of charges and they never issued any articles of charges, so also, no disciplinary enquiry has been initiated, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. 12. There is relationship in between the petitioner and the respondents as employee and employer. It is only question involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance during probation period or not. No doubt, the petitioner appointment is permanent basis, but probation period has not been declared. Further, it appears that the respondents without issuing any show-cause notice or without giving fair opportunity to the petitioner directly issued impugned order, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. 13. Under the aforementioned circumstances, it is very clear that the respondent authorities without conduct any statutory enquiry or without issuing any show cause notice, unilaterally suspending the petitioner from service is declared as illegal and arbitrary. 14. Therefore, the respondents are directed to conduct statutory enquiry in accordance with law by framing articles of charges and dispose of the same by passing appropriate reasoned order within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Therefore, the respondents are directed to conduct statutory enquiry in accordance with law by framing articles of charges and dispose of the same by passing appropriate reasoned order within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the respondents are directed to grant subsistence allowance to the petitioner in accordance with the rules till attains finality of the enquiry to be initiated against the petitioner, since the petitioner is struggling for existence without salary. 15. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.