IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11090 of 2008 Between: V.S. Narayana, S/o. V.Satyanarayana, R/o. Door No.35-55-4, Bank Colony, Tanuku, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tanuku Depot, Tanuku, West Godavri District. .....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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction , more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.01/197(2)/2008-TNK, dated 05.05.2008 of the respondents in illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as conductor as usual, in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11090 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in Tanuku Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was placed under suspension, vide orders, dated 05.05.2008. It is sated that the petitioner was booked for the duty for a service at 7:10 hours, whereas he has reported to duty at 7:35 hours. The service is said to have been operated through a conductor of a different service and when the petitioner was asked to perform duty on other service, he flatly refused by raising technical objections. The petitioner submits that he reported to duty on time and for one reason or the other, the service, on which he was booked, was cancelled. It is also his case that when he was asked to perform duty on a different long distance service, he expressed his inability, on the ground of ill-health, and on bearing grudge against him, the respondent has placed him under suspension. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The allegation against the petitioner or the consequential charge is in a very limited compass. It is alleged that he reported to duty late by 25 minutes. While the respondent contends that the service was operated through another conductor and the petitioner refused to perform duty on another service, the petitioner contradicts the same. It is stated that the departmental enquiry has already been concluded. The petitioner is under suspension for past two and half months. Now that the enquiry itself is concluded, the matter can be given finality within a period of another three weeks. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 18.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11090 of 2008 Date: 18.07.2008 JSU