HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5029 of 2010 Dated: 05-03-2010 Between: B.Kishan. … Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5029 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the charge sheet, dated 9th December 2009, issued by the Depot Manager of Jangaon Depot, and the order of suspension, dated 9th December 2009, passed in Proceedings No.01/114(1)/09-JN. 2. On 19.11.2009, when the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-2980 from Jangaon to Wanaparthy, one of the passengers has complained to the authorities, stating that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in an intoxicated condition, and also in a rash and negligent manner, and that he also misbehaved with passengers. Based on such complaint, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by framing charges to the following effect : “1. For having driven the vehicle No.AP-28-Z- 2980 under the influence of alcohol and rash and negligent manner on 19.11.2009 on the route Jangaon- Wanaparthy which amounts to misconduct under Regulation No.28 (ix) (a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963. 2. For having absconded from your duty from 18.00 hrs, to 21.00 hrs., on 19.11.2009, refused to undergo the Breach Analyser test and run away from the S.M. room, MGBS/HYD and threatened to commit suicide which amounts to misconduct under Regulation No. 28 (ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulations, 1963. 3. For having failed to cooperate with the officials of the MGBS/HYD for conducting the alcoholic test on 19.11.2009 which amounts to misconduct under Regulation No.28 (ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees Conduct Regulation, 1963”. 3. In this writ petition, it is submitted that there was a certificate issued by the Osmania General Hospital on 19.11.2009 itself, stating that on examination of the petitioner by the Doctors, they found that there was no smell of alcohol and that the petitioner was not intoxicated. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that inspite of such a record before the authority, the impugned orders are passed by initiating disciplinary proceedings, without any basis. 4. The charge sheet issued against the petitioner is dated 9th December 2009, and even the suspension order is passed on the same day, placing the petitioner under suspension, pending inquiry. Whether the petitioner is liable for the charges levelled against him, is a matter of inquiry, and this Court, based on the certificate alleged to have been issued by the Osmania General Hospital, cannot interfere with the disciplinary proceedings, and also with the order of suspension. If there is any material in support of his case, it is for the petitioner to place such material before the disciplinary authority, or the inquiry officer, where the disciplinary proceedings are pending. 5. As much as it is submitted that the petitioner has already filed his explanation to the charge sheet, dated 9th December 2009, I deem it appropriate to disposed of the writ petition, directing the 2nd respondent to complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th March 2010 ajr