IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 18867 of 2009 Between: M.S.Chary, Hanmkonda, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18867 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is working as a Driver with the A.P.S.R.T.C. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order of the 2nd respondent dated 7.8.2009 placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry in to the allegation that he had driven the vehicle in negligent manner and lack of anticipation causing fatal accident on 25.6.2009, as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that a charge sheet has also been issued on 7.8.2009 and the enquiry is in progress. However, while pointing out that several other drivers who are also involved in fatal accident cases and against whom criminal proceedings are also pending are allowed to continue in service, it is contended that the impugned order of suspension arbitrary and discriminatory. It is also contended that the 2nd respondent, being a member of the Joint Accident Committee, has predetermined the issue and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside on that ground also. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the above submissions has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in P.Rajender v. Union of India and another[1]. There cannot be any dispute about the ratio laid down by the Division Bench that the suspension cannot be ordered in a routine manner simply because the rules enable it. However, this is a case where the petitioner is admittedly involved in a fatal accident case and disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. In the circumstances, the respondents thought it fit to place the petitioner under suspension till the enquiry is concluded in public interest. That apart it is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent who passed the impugned order is competent under law. In the circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of suspension. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner following due process of law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:10.09.2009 mrb [1] 2001 (5) ALD 290