THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1277 of 2010 Between: Md. Saifuddin Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND APSRTC, Rep. By its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC ‘X’ Road, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: In this writ petition the petitioner questioned the order of suspension dated 03.12.2009 and charge sheet dated 03.12.2009 issued in Proceedings No.02/474(35)/2009-BDN. According to the petitioner, he joined the services of the respondent Corporation as a conductor in June, 1988 and his services were regularised w.e.f 01.07.1990. While scrutinising the records of the conductors, the second respondent found that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities, and therefore, suspended him from service vide proceedings dated 03.12.2009, and issued charge sheet dated 03.12.2009 framing the following charges: “1. For having failed to show the cancelled KMs. in the SR on Sundays and drawn Incentive and OT while performing duty on route Bodhan-Degloor on 13.09.09, 04.10.09, 11.10.09, 18.10.09, 25.10.09, 01.11.09 & 08.11.09 though the service trip of Salampad (30 KMs.) cancelled on Sundays, which constitutes mis-conduct in terms of Reg.28 sub- clause (xxxi) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. 2. For having cheated the Corporation by showing full operation in SR and drawn OT amount of Rs.232/- each Driver & Conductor (totally Rs.464/-) and OT amount Rs.203.37 ps. each (totally Rs.414.54 ps.) for the days on 13.09.09, 04.10.09, 11.10.09, 18.10.09, 25.10.09, 01.11.09 & 08.11.09 while performing 07.00 hrs. Degloor(s) duty, which constitutes misconduct in terms of Reg.28, sub- clause (xxxi) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not responsible for withdrawal of the amounts other than his entitlement towards incentive and over time. He also submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and the same were done contrary to the case made in the Statistical Returns Book. He further submitted that though similar cases are there against several other employees, no action has been taken against them, and that since the petitioner belongs to a particular Union, he is placed under suspension selectively. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in K.SUKHENDAR REDDY v. STATE OF A.P[1]. Insofar as the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, since the petitioner is placed under suspension pending enquiry, it is a matter for enquiry by the concerned Officer. If the petitioner is innocent, he can give evidence in the enquiry. Since the enquiry is pending before the competent disciplinary authority, this Court cannot examine the material, which is sought to be relied on by the petitioner and record a finding as to whether the petitioner is responsible for the alleged irregularities or not. Insofar as the other submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that other similarly placed conductors were not placed under suspension, though their names were referred to in the representation of the petitioner dated 15.01.2010, in the absence of any material to show the same, this Court cannot accept the discrimination pleaded. Though the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.Sukhendar Reddy’s case (supra), wherein it has been held that the Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension, but in the instant case, it is to be noticed that in the absence of any material to show that there are similar allegations against other persons to that of the petitioner, it is not possible for this Court to record that there has been a selective suspension. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to this case. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition to interfere with the impugned order, at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, as the petitioner is placed under suspension as early as on 03.12.2009 and it is stated that explanation is also offered by him, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably 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. R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Date: 12.04.2010 va [1] (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 257