THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7706 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was a Senior Assistant in the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, has challenged the order, dated 27.03.2010, passed by the 2nd respondent herein in proceedings No.01/227(1)/2010-DM/WL-I. The impugned order is passed against the petitioner, placing him under suspension pending enquiry in terms of regulation 20 of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1976 (for short ‘the Regulations’). On the basis of the allegations, a charge memo was issued framing four charges, which read as under: CHARGE-1: “For having failed to send copies of the Death Certificate, Death Notification, Police Panhanama, Post-mortem, FIR pertaining to late Sri P.Sammaiah, E.650149, Driver of Warangal –I Depot, which were submitted on 26.02.2008 by Smt. P.Sarojana, wife of the said deceased Driver who expired on 10.01.2008, to the Secretary, APSRTC Employee Thrift & CCS Ltd., HYD for the purpose deciding the eligibility in respect of the deceased Driver for the monetary benefit notified under Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Scheme, which act of yourself in this regard constitutes mis-conduct on your part under Regulations-28(xix) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. CHARGE-2: “For having failed to arrange to send copies of Death Certificate, Death Notification, Police Panchanama, Post-mortem, FIR pertaining to late Sri K.M.Reddy, E.342213, Driver of Warangal-I Depot, which were submitted on 16.2.2009 by Smt.K.Indira, wife of the said deceased Driver who expired on 20.01.2009, to the Secretary, APSRTC Employees’ Thrift&CCS Ltd., HYD before 19.4.2009 i.e. within 90 days from the date of death of the Driver as per procedure laid down thereof, as a result of which the wife of the deceased Driver lost the monetary benefit notified under Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Scheme, which act of yourself in this regard constitutes mis-conduct on your part under Regulations-28(xix) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. CHARGE-3: “For having failed to file the Office order copy and respective “Acknowledgments” given by the parties concerned with regard to receipt of various settlement amounts received by them as detailed under “Allegations” above in the respective P.Cases of the employees concerned, duly making an entry to that effect in the SR concerned and submit the same (i.e. relevant P.cases and SRs) to the Dy.Supdt. (P) of the Office for his signature thereon, which act of yourself in this regard constitutes mis- conduct on your part under Regulations-28(xix) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. CHARGE-4: “For having failed to open a Case File and put up the report dated 20.10.2008 submitted by the Asst. Manager (Traffic) of Warangal-I Depot with regard to the unauthorized absence of Sri D.M.Reddy, E.305708, Driver of WL-Depot to his duties w.e.f. 12.10.2008 to 19.10.2008 for orders of Depot Manager, Warangal-I Depot thereon, which act of yourself in this regard constitutes mis-conduct on your part under Regulations- 28(xix) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petitioner is not at fault and if the charges leveled against him are taken on their face value, they cannot be construed as grave, so as to place him under suspension. A perusal of the charges framed against the petitioner indicates misconduct within the meaning of the Regulations. In that view of the matter, it is for the disciplinary authority/enquiry authority to look into the same during the enquiry, but at this stage, it cannot be said that the charges leveled against the petitioner are not grave. If the petitioner is innocent and he is not responsible for the charges, it is for him to prove in the course of enquiry. The impugned order is the one for suspension pending enquiry and the enquiry is yet to be completed. Therefore, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents to complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, within a maximum period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the enquiry is not completed within the said period, the respondents shall consider to review the order dated 27.03.2010 and communicate the same to the petitioner. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________ 08.04.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7706 of 2010 Date: 08.04.2010