THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.27227 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Conductor in the Uppal Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C.. The Traffic Inspector of that depot, by name N.L.Narayana, submitted a complaint on 04.10.2010, alleging that the petitioner scolded him in filthy language and attributed motives in the matter of allotment of duties to conductors. The Depot Manager, Uppal Depot, the 2nd respondent herein, caused a preliminary enquiry into the matter through Assistant Manager (Traffic), the 3rd respondent herein. After recording the statements of the various individuals that are connected with the issue, the 3rd respondent submitted a report, dated 07.10.2010. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 08.10.2010, suspending the petitioner pending enquiry. On the same day, a charge sheet was issued. The petitioner challenges the order, through which he was placed under suspension. Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the complaint submitted by the Traffic Inspector was motivated and that there is no truth in it. He contends that though the petitioner also submitted a complaint alleging that the Traffic Inspector scolded him, no action has been taken thereon. Learned counsel further submits that the 3rd respondent submitted a biased report and that in turn was treated as the basis for disciplinary proceedings and the order of suspension. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the material that is available on record so far discloses that the petitioner used unparliamentary and filthy language against a superior and the truth or otherwise thereof, needs to be examined in the departmental enquiry. He contends that the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature and the order of suspension was passed to maintain discipline in the depot. The complaint submitted by the Traffic Inspector was taken into account by the 2nd respondent and he caused a preliminary verification of the contents thereof. The 3rd respondent recorded the statements of the concerned employees, and of the petitioner and submitted a report. The findings thereon cannot be treated as final. All the same, the purport thereof can certainly be taken into account, for the purpose of framing the charges and to decide whether an order of suspension be passed against the employee against whom allegations are made. A perusal of the record that is placed by the petitioner before this Court, discloses that the very uncivilized and barbaric language was used by one person or the other. Even if part of it is true, it is a matter of serious concern. The question as to whether the petitioner uttered the words attributed to him or whether there existed any provocation for him, needs to be examined in the departmental enquiry. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. The departmental proceedings can be ordered to be concluded as early as possible, since what is involved is only a matter of verification of the version from the concerned employees. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, upholding the order of suspension, but directing the 2nd respondent to conclude the departmental enquiry within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is directed that the contents of the report submitted by the 3rd respondent, shall not be treated as final. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.10.11.2010. GJ