THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.16087 of 2010 Dated: 09.07.2010 Between: D. Narsaiah. .. Petitioner And APSRTC rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC X road, Hyderabad, And another. .. Respondents ORDER: It appears, while the petitioner was working as Conductor with the respondent Corporation, he was proceeded with departmentally on the allegation that he committed certain irregularities in maintaining SRs on Route Nos.3k and 45m on 01.06.2010, 06.06.2010 and 07.06.2010, which were detected by the Traffic Inspector-II, Musheerabad-2 during his scrutiny of the SRs maintained by the petitioner, and basing on those allegations, the petitioner was simultaneously issued with suspension order and the charge sheet both dated 26.06.2010 by the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager, APSRTC, Musheerabad-II Depot, enumerating the following charges: “For having opened the Rs.4/1 Deno-., ticket tray number as 012/256489 before proceeding on line, where as the said block to be opened with the number as 012/256488 vide SR.No.087/540562, dated 01.06.2010, which is an serious offence which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxv) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1963. 2) You have closed the ticket tray number of Rs.6/- Deno- ., in the SR No.087/540795, dt: 07.06.2010 on route 45 M at stage No.12 as 866 from 857 and shown the number of issues as ‘9’, further you have closed the same denomination, ticket tray numbers at stage No.10 as 863 i.e., in reduced manner, which is an serious offence which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxv) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963. 3) You have closed the ticket tray number of Rs.9/- Deno- ., SR No.087/540755, dt: 06.06.2010 at stage No.3, 8.31/86 trip as 897 and at stage No.1, 9.36/41 trip you have closed as 894 in reduced manner which is an serious offence which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28 (xxv) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963.” The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no allegation of misappropriation of revenue of the Corporation against him and, therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent in placing him under suspension by the impugned suspension order is nothing but basing on flimsy grounds. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. A perusal of the charge sheet would indicate that the irregularities alleged against the petitioner were detected by the Traffic Inspector-II, Musheerabad-2, during his scrutiny of the SRs maintained by the petitioner while conducting bus on 01.06.2010, 06.06.2010 and 07.06.2010, but there is no allegation of any misappropriation of funds of the Corporation by the petitioner. The allegations leveled are with regard to improper maintenance of SRs on various dates by the petitioner while conducting the bus. These are all the matters on record as on today. Generally speaking, the delinquent is kept under suspension either to keep him away from tampering with the records or influencing the witnesses. However, in the case on hand, these two aspects are absent and there is no possibility of the petitioner either to tamper with the records or influence the witnesses. Therefore, there is necessity of continuing the petitioner under suspension as it would not serve any purpose and the impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned suspension order, and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. However, this will not preclude the authorities from conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as per law. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 09.07.2010 Note: Issue CC in two days B/o v v