THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26590 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in Nizamabad-II Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. In the last week of July 2010, himself and another Driver were posted with the duty to operate a TIM Service from Nizamabad to Bangalore and back to Nizamabad. A check was conducted on 25.07.2010 and a charge sheet was issued on 02.08.2010 alleging that the petitioner permitted 1500 kgs of luggage on the roof of the bus as against the permitted load of 500 kgs, two cartoons of wine bottles were found on the Driver seat and a sum of Rs.500/- unaccounted cash was found with the petitioner. On the same day, respondent No.2 passed an order, dated 02.08.2010, placing the petitioner under suspension. W.P.No.20992 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of suspension. The writ petition was disposed of on 31.08.2010, directing respondent No.3 to review the order of suspension. In compliance with the direction, respondent No.3 passed an order, dated 30.09.2010, taking the view that the suspension, pending enquiry, is very much warranted. The petitioner challenges the said order. Heard Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The respondents commenced disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing charge sheet, dated 02.08.2010. Through an order passed on the same day, respondent No.2 placed the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry. On a direction issued by this Court, respondent No.3 reviewed the matter and took the view that the suspension of the petitioner is very much warranted. This is not the stage to express any final view on the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioner. It has only to be seen as to whether the charges are so grave as to warrant suspension, pending enquiry. Whatever may be the explanation offered by the petitioner as regards charge Nos.2 to 4, charge No.1 is a bit serious. Wine bottles ought not to have been transported in a passenger bus. Whether or not the petitioner is the owner of those goods or whether he has in any way responsible for their presence in the bus is a matter that needs to be enquired into. This Court is of the view that having regard to the nature of the charge, the suspension pending enquiry cannot be held to be unjustified. The interest of the petitioner can be protected by directing that the domestic enquiry shall be concluded within a period of six (6) weeks from today, uninfluenced by any observations made by respondent No.3 in the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be concluded within a period of six (6) weeks from today, uninfluenced by any observations made by respondent No.3 in the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 27.10.2010. kdl