THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.11795 OF 2011 DATED: 26-04-2011. Between M.A.N.Patrudu … Petitioner And 1.The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and two others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.11795 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 3rd respondent herein vide proceedings No.P2/802 (i)/II-PDR, dated 11-03- 2011 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same. 2. Brief facts are that after completing the duty on 12-02-2011 when the petitioner was leaving the Garage at about 16.45 hours, he himself asked the Security Head Constable to verify his bag. Then the Security Head Constable verified his bag and noticed one JEI bearing in his bag along with one lunch box, water bottle and ear cap and submitted the same to the 3rd respondent. Basing on the same, the 3rd respondent initiated preliminary enquiry and enquiry was conducted by the S.T.I. Paderu and submitted a report and basing on the said report, the 3rd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on 11-03-2011. Thereafter, the following charge was framed against the petitioner: “For having theft the JEI bearing from the depot garage on 12-02-2011 and carrying the item duly keeping it in your bag while leaving the depot after spell of your duty on the date at about 16.45 hrs which was noticed during the course of routine check by the on duty Security Constable, which your act comes under misconduct under Reg. 28 (x) and (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that preliminary enquiry was conducted by a person who bore grudge against the petitioner and hence, he prays to set aside the suspension order. 4. The petitioner is not supposed to carry any article from the garage outside. In the routine check up, the Security Head Constable found JEI bearing, which was kept in the bag of the petitioner. Therefore, prima facie the petitioner is alleged to have committed theft of some article, which is a misconduct within the purview of regulations governing the service conditions of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was rightly placed under suspension. This Court would not interfere with the suspension order pending enquiry or contemplating enquiry unless there is attribution of mala fides against the officer who suspended a person. There are no such allegations against the officer who placed the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 26-04-2011 Hsd