IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23103 of 2008 Between: Sri.B.N.Reddy, S/o. Sri bhaskar Reddy, R/o. 9-33-4, Plot No.139, Pithapuram Colony, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Visakhapatnam Rural Depot, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent vide No.2/95(113)/08-VSP., dated 30.09.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, untenable, without any application of mind, without conducting enquiry, violative of Principles of nature justice, contrary to the regulations of APSRTC and contrary Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R : This writ petition has been filed by B.N.Reddy with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order vide No.2/95(113)/08-VSP, dated 30.09.2008, issued by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Rural Depot, Visakhapatnam-2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Petitioner B.N.Reddy is a driver in APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Depot. On 22.09.2008 he allegedly allowed an unauthorized person to travel from Visakhapatnam to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam in the place of Attender Sri T.V.R.Patrudu. The checking officials checked the bus at Stage No.I, Visakhapatnam and noticed traveling of an unauthorized person from Visakhapatnam to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam in the place of Attender Sri T.V.R.Patrudu. The checking officials recorded the spot statement. Basing on the report submitted by the checking officials, departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. Pending the enquiry, the petitioner came to be kept under suspension vide proceeding No.2/95(113)/08-VSP, dated 30.09.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent. The said proceeding is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 04.11.2008. An interim suspension of the proceeding impugned in the writ petition also came to be granted on the even date vide W.P.M.P.No.30101 of 2008. 4. The respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and moved WVMP No.3953 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 04.11.2008. When the Vacate Stay Petition came up for consideration, submissions have been made in the main writ petition and hence, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not responsible for traveling of unauthorized person in the bus as an Attendant since the Duty Controller is the person responsible for allowing the unauthorized person for traveling in the bus in place of Attender T.V.R.Patrudu. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the checking officials found a CRPF constable viz., P.Siva Kumar traveling in the place of Attender TVR Patrudu and the statement of said CRPF constable came to be recorded and he nowhere stated that the duty controller permitted him to travel in the bus. 8. The fact that one P.Siva Kumar, CRPF constable, traveled in the bus conducted by the petitioner is no more in dispute. As to who permitted the said P.Siva Kumar to travel in the bus in the place of Attender TVR Patrudu is required to be examined in the departmental enquiry. It is suffice to say that one P.Siva Kumar, CRPF constable, traveled in the bus in the place of Attender TVR Patrudu. In that view of the matter, the suspension order issued by the 2nd respondent pending enquiry does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 04.11.2008 passed in WPMP No.30101 of 2008 stands vacated. However, the respondents are directed to complete the departmental enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:28th January, 2009. Note: Issue C.C. within two days. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}