IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4651 of 2009 Between: V.Anjaneyulu S/o.Edinna Staff No.100143, Ranigunj-2 Depot,R/o.1-148/1 Gandhi Nagar,Kapra, R.R.District-62 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, Ranigunj Depot -2 Secunderabad 2 The APSRTC., rep.byits Managing Director Bus Bhavan, RTC X ROADS, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned charge sheet dated 14.11.2008 vide No.P1/114(1)/08- RNG-II consequential impugned Proc.No.P1/114(1)/09-RNG-Ii dated 17.2.2009 of the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of articles, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service forthwith with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESHWARLU GUMMADAVELLY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4651 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner is a conductor in APSRTC. Consequent on his implication in a criminal case, which arises out of a complaint filed by his daughter-in-law, first respondent issued proceedings keeping him under suspension. The petitioner came out on bail on 22-10-2008. Since he happens to be in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, an order of suspension came to be issued followed by a charge sheet. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the action of the respondents in keeping him under suspension despite the criminal Court granting bail to him. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for APSRTC takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the conduct of the petitioner which lead to registering of the criminal case is in no way connected to discharge of his duties as conductor in the respondents organization. He would further submit that order of suspension is required to be reviewed consequent on the petitioner coming out on bail. He refers regulation 18(6) of the CCA Regulations 1967. Regulation 18(6) reads as under: “An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this regulation may at anytime be revoked by the authority which has made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which the authority is subordinate. It is thus seen that an employee is deemed to be under suspension only by an order of the appointing authority after receipt of a report from the Police authorities informing about the arrest and detention of an employee on a criminal charge. Therefore, in terms of Reg.18(2) and order of suspension may be passed and under Reg.18(6) the order of suspension can at any time be revoked by the authority who passed the order of suspension or by a higher authority. This provision is made so is to enable the competent authority to lift the order of suspension when it is considered that the continuance of the employee under suspension is not warranted. For example, an employee might have been placed under suspension under Reg.18(2) because of the intimation of his arrest by police on a criminal charges. Subsequent to the passing of the order, the employee might have been released on bail. It is un-necessary to keep him under suspension further filing of charge sheet trial of the same etc. takes much longer time unless the criminal offences is involved is heinous like Murder, dacoity etc. Therefore, the suspension can be lifted under Reg. 18(6) of CCA Regulations 1967, pending disposal of the criminal offences.” As the above referred regulation empowers the disciplinary authority to review the order of suspension, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to exercise the power conferred on him under Regulation 18(6) and take appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ___________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J Date: 06-03-2009 KLP