THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 26126 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Lady Conductor, working in the Achampet Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 17-08-2010, she was conducting a service from Vankeshwaram to Achampet. A check was conducted at about 6 p.m. It was alleged that she did not close the star document from stages 6 to 5. A charge-sheet was issued on 27-08-2010, mentioning the alleged failure to close the star document. Another charge was that the petitioner provoked the passengers against the checking officials, and that in turn has resulted in damage, to the reputation of the Corporation. On the same day, an order, placing the petitioner under suspension, was passed. This writ petition is filed assailing the order of suspension. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner discloses that no cash and ticket irregularities were found against her. The first charge is about the fact that she failed to close the star document for one stage. The second charge is that she was provoked the passengers against the checking staff. The truth or otherwise of these charges needs to be verified in the domestic enquiry, if the respondents propose to conduct the same. An employee would be placed under suspension, pending enquiry, into the grave charges and in public interest. The first charge can, by no means, be said to be so serious, as to warrant suspension, pending enquiry. The reason is that the alleged failure on the part of the petitioner to close the star document is a matter of record, and there is no possibility for the petitioner to tamper with any record. So far as the second charge is concerned, it is as vague as it could be. Passengers in a bus are strangers to conductor, and it is just unthinkable as to how a conductor would provoke the passengers against the checking staff. Further, the petitioner is a woman and checking party comprises of fairly large number of superior officials. There is not even an allegation that the petitioner collected charges from passengers, but failed to issue tickets. It is only in such cases, that there may exists any possibility for the passengers or the conductor to resist the efforts of the checking staff, to initiate necessary proceedings. It is just unthinkable as to how a lady conductor can provoke passengers, that too, hailing from rural and interior areas, to protest against the checking staff. The order is silent as to the nature of protest, if not the provocation itself. In the contemporary society, it is only under extreme compulsions, that women would choose to be employed, as conductors. Instead of appreciating the conduct of the petitioner, who was found to have issued tickets to all the passengers, the checking staff appears to have searched for excuses, to harass her. There is absolutely no basis for suspending the petitioner from service. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22-10-2010. KO