IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1695 of 2009 Between: Md.Shabeer S/o.Late M.A.Rahim APSRTC,Achampt Depot, R/o.H.No.5-86, Bijinepally village, Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Achampet Depot Mahabubnagr 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the ction of respondent in suspending petitioner vide proceedings No.02/131(1)/2008 ACPT dated 24.12.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate petitioner into service as a driver by considering my exlanation dated 27.12.2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 1695 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner was appointed as driver in the Respondent Corporation in the year 1988 in Mahabubnagar District. He was transferred to Achampet Depot in the year 1992. Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him for his rash and negligent driving. A Charge Memo has been served on him. He submitted explanation to the Charge Memo. The Respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer. Now the proceedings are pending with the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in suspending him vide Proceedings NO. 02/131 (1)/2008 ACPT, dated 24-12-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and disproportionate. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt. B.G. Uma Devi, learned standing counsel appearing for APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the respondent Corporation. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the explanation of the petitioner has not been properly considered by the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, the appointment of Enquiry Officer is not legal and proper. 5. The fact that the Disciplinary Authority appointed Enquiry Officer is not in dispute. Such is the situation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to complete the enquiry within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 4th February, 2009. Note: C.C. in three days B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 1695 OF 2009 4th February, 2009.