HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9518 of 2010 Dated: 26-04-2010 Between: D.V.S.N. Murali. … Petitioner And APSRTC, Hyderabad, rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9518 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Conductor working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), and is presently working in the 2nd respondent-Depot. He was in-charge of the bus bearing No.AP-16-TX-5887, on the route from Vijayawada to Tiruvuru, on 12th of April 2010. The bus in question was hired by APSRTC, and one Subba Rao was the Driver, who was to drive the vehicle. It is the case of the respondents that there was unauthorized change of Driver when the petitioner was conducting the bus, which led to an accident and spot death of the rider of TVS Moped bearing No.AP-16-F- 4475. With reference to the above said negligence, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, he was charge-sheeted by issuing the impugned charge sheet, dated 17th April 2010, issued in Proceedings No.E1/2(2)/2010-TVR, and he was also placed under suspension, pending inquiry. In this writ petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the bus in question was a hired vehicle and the Driver of the said bus will be provided by the owner of the vehicle, and hence, the petitioner was in no way concerned with the change of Driver. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that the allegation is made against the petitioner, that he has hidden the fact of unauthorized change of Driver while he was conducting the bus and the same resulted in the accident. In that view of the matter, what is the responsibility of the petitioner as a Conductor in such a situation, is a matter for inquiry, but this Court cannot entertain this writ petition, at this stage, to declare either the charge sheet or the suspension order issued to the petitioner, as illegal. However, as much as only one charge is framed against the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from today, and if for any reason, the inquiry is not completed within the said time, the respondents shall consider reviewing the order of suspension, and communicate the decision taken thereon, to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th April 2010 ajr