IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7882 of 2009 Between: CH.CH.K. Raju, S/o. Venkata Sathi Raju, E.No.351772, R/o. Kamavarapukota, near Check Post, West Godavari Dsitrict. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Vice- Chairman & Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,Hyderabad. 2 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Depot Manager, Janagareddy gudem Bus Depot Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SHIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 19.01.2009 whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension. The charge framed against the petitioner, a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), reads as under: “For having abused and misbehaved with the complainant Sri S.A.Vali, Senior Journalist, General Secretary, AP Journalist Union, Hyderabad while you were performing you duty as a Driver with the Vehicle No.AP28 Z 2736 on 28.12.2008 on the route BHEL- Bhuttaigudem- JR Gudem which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28(xxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” The admitted fact is that the petitioner is under suspension from 19.01.2009. Ordinarily, this Court seldom interferes with the orders of suspension, because that is the domain of the employer. But, in a case of this nature, the accusation against the petitioner is that he ill-behaved with a journalist, his continued suspension pending enquiry would cause more harm to public interest rather than serving the same. The result of the continued suspension of the petitioner would be, to pay him salary by way of subsistence allowance without extracting any work from him. While disciplining of the employees of a Corporation providing essential service to public is necessary, the same should not prove counter productive. In the facts of this case, it is appropriate that the petitioner is reinstated into service pending enquiry so that the public funds can be saved. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service pending enquiry. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th APRIL, 2009. kvni