HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.14331 of 2009 Date: March 10, 2010 Between: Sri V. Bala Raju, E.53805, Depot Clerk, S/o.Narsaiah, aged about 56 years, R/o.Kodad, Nalgonda District … Petitioner And The APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and two others … Respondents Order: The petitioner, a Depot Clerk in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, has filed this writ petition seeking Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not relieving him, to the promotion post of TI-II (Traffic Inspector) and also proceedings No.02/550(2)/09-KDD, dated 30-06-2009, issued by third respondent, Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kodad Depot, Nalgonda District, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 03-05-1975 and worked in various capacities. He was promoted as Depot Clerk by the second respondent in March, 2005 and later as Traffic Inspector and posted at Yadagirigutta, by order dated 11-12-2008. It is stated that in spite of order dated 11-12-2008, promoting him to the post of Traffic Inspector, the petitioner is detained at Kodad Depot and the second respondent issued order dated 18-06-2009 to that effect. While so, alleging certain irregularities against the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and charge sheet dated 30-06-2009 was issued to him framing the following charge: “For having temporarily misappropriate an amount of Rs.30,482/- from the monthly incentive payable to the employees of Kodad depot for the month of May, 2009 when checked by the Dy.Supdt(F)/Kodad on 18.06.2009 which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg.1963”. 3. Accordingly, the third respondent, by the impugned order, placed the petitioner under suspension. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Traffic Inspector and posted at Yadagirigutta Depot, there is no reason for not relieving him from Kodad Depot. It is stated that the charge of temporary misappropriation framed against the petitioner is false and the third respondent is not vested with the power to place the petitioner under suspension. 5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, generally, denying various allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that petitioner was promoted as Dy.Supdt(T) vide office order dated 11-12-2008 and as no substitute was posted, he was not relieved and in the meantime petitioner has submitted representation to retain him at Kodad depot. Accordingly, based on the request of the petitioner, order dated 10-06-2009 was passed retaining him at Kodad depot. It is stated that in view of cash irregularities committed by the petitioner, prior to his promotion as Dy.Supdt(T), order dated 30-06-2009 is passed by the third respondent-Depot Manager, Kodad depot, who is the competent authority as per Delegation of Powers, to place the petitioner under suspension. 6. Though the petitioner was promoted to the post of Dy.Supdt(T), by order dated 11-12-2008, on his own request, he was retained at Kodad depot and order dated 10-06-2009 was passed to that effect. Since the petitioner himself requested for his retention at Kodad depot, he cannot question the action of the respondents stating that they are not relieving him in spite of his promotion. It is to be seen that though the petitioner was promoted, he was not relieved basing on his request and while he was working as Depot Clerk itself, alleging certain irregularities against him, an enquiry was conducted on 22-06-2009 and charge sheet dated 30-06-2009 was issued to him. In view of existence of prima facie case and seriousness of the charge, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the third respondent-Depot Manager of Kodad depot. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent is not competent to place the petitioner under suspension cannot be accepted for the reason that though the petitioner was promoted as Dy.Supdt(T), he was not relieved at his own request and as on the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him, he was working as a Depot Clerk only. It is not dispute that the appointing authority to the post of Depot Clerk is a Junior Scale Officer and the disciplinary authority who passed the impugned order, i.e. the third respondent, is also a Junior Scale Officer. Hence, it can neither be said that the respondents did not relieve the petitioner wantonly nor the third respondent is not competent to have passed the impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition to interfere with the order, suspending the petitioner, dated 30- 06-2009. But, however, as the petitioner was placed under suspension as early as in June, 2009 and also taking into account the nature of charge framed against him, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the disciplinary authority to complete the enquiry, and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, however, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J March 10, 2010 MRR