IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9235 of 2008 Between: Mohd Yaqoob Ali S/o Abdul Waheb APSRTC, Rajendranagar Depot, R/o H. No. 19-5-32/13/A/6/2, Kishan Bagh X- Road, Mahmoodngar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Rajendranagar Depot, Ranga Reddy district, (Charminar Division, Hyderabad) ...RESPONDENT 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring that the issuing of suspension order No. M1/197(5)/2008-RJNR, dt 16-04-2008 and charge sheet No. M1/197(5)/08-RJNR dated 16-04-2008 by replacing the name of petitioner in the place of duty conductor name in charge sheet and suspension order by framing same charges with same dated and order numbers whereas the Conductor and driver's duties are quite different that the petitioner's duty is to follow the traffic rules while driving vehicle, to follow the traffic signals on line, to drive the bus to save the public and vehicles from accident to traveling and running on the road by controlling running speed, to run the bus as per schedule timings, not to leave from the bus, but it is not the duty of petitioner to put and remove the destination Board and to allow and not allow the passengers into the bus, it is the duty of the conductor to put destination board and allow passengers, is as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice by setting a side the suspension order and granting all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9235 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as a Driver in the Rajendranagar Depot of APSRTC. On 16.4.2008, the respondent issued a charge sheet, as well as passed an order of suspension against the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner failed to discharge his duties properly on 9.4.2008, and had misguided the passengers, subjecting them to hardship. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that identical allegations were made against the conductor also, and the petitioner was helpless in driving the bus, unless the conductor has taken necessary steps, such as issuing tickets, etc. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the charges framed against the petitioner are serious in nature, and it is for the petitioner to defend himself, in the departmental enquiry. He contends that the order of suspension does not suffer from any factual, or legal infirmity. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 9.4.2008, when he was on duty to drive the service on Route No.94, he has avoided driving the bus, at the late hours of 10.45 P.M., and thereby, caused inconvenience to nearly 200 passengers. It was also alleged that the petitioner misguided the passengers, by stating that the bus driven by him is destined to station of Vijayawada, though it was a local service. It was also alleged that he did not heed to the advice of the superior officers also, and ultimately an additional service has to be provided. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioner, needs to be examined in the departmental enquiry. As of now, it cannot be said that the order of suspension is without any basis. Any further discussion, on the merits of the matter, is likely to have its shadow upon the departmental proceedings. This court is not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The respondent shall, however, expedite the disciplinary proceedings and conclude the same, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 25th April 2008 PAN