IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8089 of 2008 Between: Ch.Maheswara Rao S/o.Late Venkata RAo Parwathipuram Depot R/o.Parwathipuram, Vizianagaram District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., rep.by its Managing Director Mushirabad, Hyderabad 2 The APSRTC., rep.by its Vigilance & Security Officer Vizianagaram Zone, Visakhapatnam 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Parwathipuram Vizianagaram District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in suspending the petitioner from service on the allegation of violation of conduct rules on the complaint made by the rival union member vide proc.No.V&SO/114(17)/VSP/07-Visakhapatnam dated 25.3.2008 and issuing charge sheet to as illegal, without jurisdiction unjust and arbitrary, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8089 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Security Head Guard in the Parvathipuram Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. Through order dated 25-03-2008, the Vigilance and Security Officer, Vizianagaram Zone, the 2nd respondent herein, placed the petitioner under suspension. It was alleged that the petitioner had illicit contact with a woman, and that he utilized the Supervisor’s Rest Room, without paying any rent, for illegal purposes. Allegations as to irregularities in passing out the vehicles, were also included. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension by stating that none of the reasons, mentioned in it, are proved, and that the suspension is totally unwarranted. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Apart from an order of suspension, the 2nd respondent issued a charge-sheet on 25-03-2008. Three charges, covering the allegations, pointed out above, were framed. The truth or otherwise of the same, needs to be examined at the departmental inquiry. For the present, it cannot be said that the suspension of the petitioner is not warranted. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over orders of suspension. Even where prima facie case exists, the employer would be entitled to place the workman under suspension, to protect the interests of the organization. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the 2nd respondent shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt: 15-04-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}