THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12864 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner, who is working as a driver in the fourth respondent depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), questions the order, dated 20.04.2010 passed by the third respondent suspending him pending enquiry. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that in the communication sent by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had stocked the prohibited red sanders wood in his house bearing No.17-140, 29th Ward, Raja Nagar, Srikalahasti Town, illegally. Further, during the course of investigation, it came to light that he committed theft of the said material. In connection with the same, he was arrested on 11.01.2010 and released on 12.01.2010. It is stated that the petitioner has concealed the fact of his arrest and release on bail, which constitutes serious misconduct. On the said allegation of misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension. It is the case of the petitioner that the misconduct alleged against him is not during the course of employment and it no way relates to the service conditions, as such, the action of the third respondent in suspending him pending enquiry by the impugned order is illegal. It is his further case that he intimated the fourth respondent about his arrest and release by way of his representation, dated 13.01.2010. On instructions, it is submitted by Smt. W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge sheet was issued to him as per the disciplinary regulations and a copy of the same is available in the material papers of the writ petition. The charges framed against the petitioner were to the effect that storing the forest material unauthorisedly in his house would amount to misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 28(xv) & (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 (for short ‘the Regulations’); that he has concealed the fact of his arrest and that he tarnished the image of the Corporation by stocking the prohibited red sanders wood in his residential house. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is not during the course of employment and it no way relates to the service conditions, under the Regulations, any action of an employee, which is not specifically mentioned in the Regulations but which is prima facie detrimental to the interests of the Corporation, amounts to misconduct within the meaning of Regulation 28(xxxi) of the Regulations framed under Section 50 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. In view of the same, whether the alleged misconduct against the petitioner amounts to violation or not under the Regulations is a matter for enquiry. As it prima facie amounts to misconduct, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. As it is stated that on the date of suspension itself, the charge sheet was issued to him, the petitioner is permitted to file his explanation within a period of ten (10) days from today, if not already filed, and the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry against him as per law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months thereafter. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 11th JUNE, 2010. kvni