THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2286 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in Warangal-I Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. since 1997. On 26.12.2010, he was driving the bus from Shiridi to Warangal. He states that at 4:00 p.m. on that day, the bus stopped at Jalna to enable the passengers to have tea and when himself and other driver were in the canteen, someone loaded the flower bags on the top of the bus and that nobody responded, when he verified and ultimately, the bus started. The bus was checked at Vemulavada in the early morning of the following day and the checking officials have verified about the luggage. The petitioner states that when they informed that nobody claimed the luggage, the checking officials are said to have endorsed that a sum of Rs.576/- should be collected from any person, who claims the luggage. It is stated that when the bus reached Warangal Depot, a person by name Mohd. Aneef came, claimed the luggage and took it by paying a sum of Rs.576/-. The said person is alleged to have stated that his friend loaded the flowers on the bus and by the time he came back after having tea, the bus left and on a telephone message, he is claiming the luggage. The Depot Manager, 2nd respondent herein issued a charge memo on 21.01.2011 narrating the said facts and on the same day, he placed the petitioner under suspension. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of suspension. On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the fare for the luggage could not have been collected, but for the vigilance of the corporation and the petitioner was negligent in allowing the luggage to be loaded. It is also stated that the disciplinary enquiry is in progress and the order of suspension does not warrant interference. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The allegation against the petitioner is that he did not verify, when the flower bags were loaded on the top of the bus. The petitioner specifically stated that himself and the other co-driver made efforts to know the person, who loaded the luggage at Jalna, and unable to find anyone, they have proceeded. The checking officials at Vemulavada are said to have advised the petitioner to collect fare before releasing the luggage. It is not as if the petitioner permitted anyone to claim or take away the luggage. Hardly before the bus reached Warangal, an individual came and collected the luggage by paying the luggage charges and penalty. The petitioner is not accused of collecting any fare or misappropriating the amount. The act of misconduct alleged against him needs to be verified in the on going enquiry. This Court feels that the suspension of the petitioner pending enquiry is unwarranted. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The reinstatement of the petitioner shall however be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to proceed with the departmental enquiry and to pass appropriate orders therein. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 09.08.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2286 of 2011 Date: 09.08.2011 JSU