THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 20204 of 2011 ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring proceedings No.01/339(01)/11-RCPM, dated 03.05.2011 issued by the first respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The averments, in brief, stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is working as Conductor in Ramachandrapuram Depot of respondent corporation. Basing on the complaint of T.I. (III) that the petitioner used filthy and un- parliamentary language, the first respondent issued a charge sheet on 03.05.2011 and he was placed under suspension pending enquiry. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.05.2011 denying the allegation that he used filthy and un-parliamentary language or abused the said T.I. (III), and that as the petitioner belongs to NMU rival union of the said T.I. (III), he made the false complaint against him. The suspension order is illegal and contrary to the Regulations of APSRTC. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in a fit of anger, abusing a higher official is not a serious misconduct so as to place an employee under suspension. It is also his contention that the alleged un-parliamentary language is not attributed to the higher officials. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that it is a serious misconduct as the petitioner has allegedly used un-parliamentary language against the higher official and so he was rightly placed suspension pending enquiry and so the impugned order needs no interference. 5. Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the suspension order pending enquiry or in contemplation of enquiry, unless mala fides are attributed to the authority or the person who issued the order lacks jurisdiction. The case of the petitioner does not fall under any one of the above two categories. 6. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged un-parliamentary language is not attributed to the higher officials, at the same time, as seen from the allegations, it is clear that the petitioner allegedly insulted not only his colleagues but also his immediate superior. Prima facie it is misconduct and therefore the petitioner was rightly placed under suspension pending enquiry. Further more, whether he used the said language or not, has to be decided during the course of enquiry. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. However, since, it is a case of single misconduct, it is desirable to direct the disciplinary authority to complete the enquiry in accordance with law and rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, failing which the suspension order shall stand revoked. 7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. It is made clear observation, if any, made in this order is only for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition, and uninfluenced by any observation in this order, the disciplinary authority shall take appropriate decision basing on the evidence let in, in the enquiry. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 19.07.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 20204 of 2011 19.07.2011