THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.30838 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Depot Clerk (Stores), in the Medchal Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. The respondent issued a charge sheet dated 06.11.2010, to the petitioner, alleging that he processed two cases for purchase of one and the same material, namely front wind screen glass for the vehicle AP 11 Z 6589, and that the same amounts to misconduct as defined under Regulation 28 (x) and (xx ii) of the APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulation, 1963. On the same day, the respondent passed another order, placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension. Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. It appears that the wind screen glass of the bus, referred to above, was broken in an accident. The Assistant Mechanical Foreman of the Depot issued a requisition to the petitioner. The same was processed and the petitioner forwarded to the Head Office for supply of the item. However, in view of the urgency, the Mechanical Foreman appears to have insisted on immediate fixation of the wind screen to put the bus in use. Accordingly, the petitioner processed for purchase of the same in the local market. By the time cheque was issued for purchase of the item, no reply was received from the Head Office. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he has processed two cases/files for the same item. It was not even suggested that the petitioner has received, or paid the amount twice, or that the Corporation has incurred any loss. This, prima facie, discussion is being undertaken, only to examine the question as to whether the suspension of the petitioner pending enquiry was warranted at all. Further, the entire record is with the respondent. There is hardly any scope for the petitioner to tamper with the evidence. If the record discloses that the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct, he can certainly be punished, after conducting enquiry. The nature of the allegation against the petitioner does not warrant suspension. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order of suspension is set aside. It shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the departmental enquiry. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.10.12.2010. GJ