IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4958 of 2008 Between: G.Venkoba S/o.Sri G.Vemann R/o.1-1786, Gandhinagar yemmiganur,Kurnool District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep.by its Chairman and Managing director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, yemmiganur Depot Kurnool District .....RESPONDENT(S 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 in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet issued by the 2nd respondent dated 26.2.2008 in No.P1/255(3)/08-Ymgr and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.K.LALITHA Counsel for the RespondentS : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was initially employed as a Driver Grade-II in APSRTC in the year 1979. Thereafter, in the year 1998, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk, on the basis of a transfer certificate said to have been issued by KNM Municipal High School, Nandyal, certifying that he passed VIII-Class. He is due to retire on 31.03.2008. The Depot Manager, Yemmiganur-2nd respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 26.02.2008, to the petitioner, stating that his verification from the Head Master, KNM Municipal High School, revealed that the petitioner did not study in that school, at all, and that the transfer certificate produced by him is not genuine. A charge was framed and the petitioner was required to submit his explanation within ten days from the date of receipt of the charge sheet. The petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated against him stating that the 2nd respondent issued the charge sheet only with a view to deny him the service benefits. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This Court cannot entertain any writ petition against a charge sheet, unless it is pointed out that it was issued by an authority not vested with the jurisdiction. It would be too premature to record any finding as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the charge sheet. The petitioner has to put forward all his contentions in the explanation to the charge sheet. The apprehension of the petitioner is that he may be placed under suspension or removed from service before he attains the age of superannuation. One thing, which attracts the attention of this Court, is that the petitioner served the organization for the past about three decades and he is just two weeks away from the date of superannuation. Though the 2nd respondent has the power to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner, suspension or other steps before he attains the age of superannuation would leave its scar on his career, notwithstanding his liability to face the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the 2nd respondent may proceed with the disciplinary inquiry initiated against the petitioner, but shall not place him under suspension till he reaches the age of superannuation. The manner in which the disciplinary proceedings would continue beyond the date of superannuation, would depend upon the type of orders that may be passed by the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.07.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ