IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14810 of 2008 Between: A. Krishnaiah S/o. Late Boraiah R.R. District, R/o. H.No.4-9-780 Lecturers Colony, Hayathnagar, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC Hayathnagar Depot, R.R. 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing suspension order without following the instructions issued in Circular No. PD 91/91 dated 21.10.1991 in Para (a) and (d) by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of APSRTC is as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of instructions issued in aforesaid circular by granting all consequential benefis and setting-a-side the suspension order No.P3/2(1)/08-HYT dated 01.07.2008 directing the respondent to take the petitioner into service. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in Hayathnagar Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was driving the bus on the route from Uppal to Hayathnagar on 20.05.2002. At 21.30 hours, an accident took place, resulting in death of a pedestrian. A preliminary enquiry was caused and thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension, through an order, dated 01.07.2008. On the same day, a charge sheet was issued to him. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension. Sri Mohd.Ghousuddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that even according to Circular No.91, dated 21.10.1991, not even a charge shall be framed in case the accidents occurred due to the boarding and alighting of passengers at unauthorized places. He contends that the death of the individual occurred in the process of his alighting the bus at an unauthorized place. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the bus driven by the petitioner hit a pedestrian, resulting in death, and it cannot be treated as a case of boarding or alighting of the bus at unauthorized place. On 01.07.2008, the respondent, on the one hand issued a charge sheet framing a charge against the petitioner, and on the other, issued an order of suspension. The allegation against the petitioner is that on account of his rash and negligent driving of the bus, a pedestrian died. The truth or otherwise of the same needs to be established in the departmental proceedings. In addition to that, a criminal case is pending under Section 304-A I.P.C. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no basis for placing the petitioner under suspension. Inasmuch as the charge sheet has already been issued, the disciplinary proceedings can be directed to be concluded within a period of two months. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the respondent is directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 10.07.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}