IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14760 of 2009 Between: S. Vittal, S/o. Late Venkanna, E.No. 301805, R/o. 1-5-11/2B, Arfath Colony, Gowliguda Mandal, Ganswada, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC 'X' Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Banswada, Nizamabad District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quash the impugned order of suspension and Charge sheet issued in the common proceedings No. 02/95(70)/2009-BSWD, dated 08-7-2009, as arbitrary, unjust, in violation of principles of natual justice as well as in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the constitution of India and consequently the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.14760 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is working as a conductor with the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation. On 05.07.2009, while he was conducting the bus service between Kamareddy and Bansawada, a check was held by the 2nd respondent during which there was a complaint by one of the passengers that the petitioner had failed to issue tickets to two lady passengers who boarded the bus at Kamareddy and had alighted at Adlur Yella Reddy, even though he collected the requisite fare of Rs.4/- from each passenger. Pursuant thereto, a charge memo was issued and simultaneously on 08.07.2009 the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect pending enquiry. The petitioner states that the allegation that he failed to issue tickets to two passengers is absolutely false and without any basis and therefore, the impugned order of suspension pending enquiry is unwarranted and unjustified. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a copy of the Service Register, in which it was endorsed that at the time of joining duty on 05.07.2009, it was disclosed by him that he had a private cash of Rs.50/-. Thus it is contended by the petitioner that the excess amount found in his possession was only Rs.3.50 ps. And the same did not tally with the alleged fare collected from the passengers who boarded the bus at Kamareddy. Therefore, according to the petitioner all the allegations made against the petitioner were absolutely false and moreover since the memorandum of settlement dated 25.05.1995 provides that the conductors should not be charged if the bus cash is in excess or short in the service bus to the extent of Rs.20/- so far as the District services are concerned, the impugned suspension pending enquiry is unwarranted. Even if the private cash of Rs.50/- disclosed by the petitioner is taken into consideration, admittedly, there is an excess amount of Rs.3.50p. Hence, it is a matter for enquiry following due process of law and it cannot be held at this stage that the allegations are unfounded. This Court has no doubt that the respondents will also take into consideration the memorandum of settlement dated 25.05.1995 while recording a finding on the charges framed against the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to hold that the impugned suspension pending enquiry is unjustified and therefore, interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already submitted his explanation to the charge memo and particularly since the petitioner is going to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2009, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 4th September, 2009 without fail. It is made clear that in case the enquiry is not completed within the time fixed above, the impugned order of suspension shall stand set aside and the petitioner shall be reinstated into service. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 17-08-2009 Note: issue C.C. in 2 days. B/o KLP