THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.20928 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Deputy Superintendent (Traffic) in the Yadagirigutta Depot of APSRTC. Through proceedings, dated 08.07.2011, the Depot Manager, the 2nd respondent, placed the petitioner under suspension. It was alleged that the petitioner did not supervise the activities of two Assistant Depot Clerks (ADCs), by name, B. Shanthaiah and M.A. Raheem, and the same resulted in misappropriation of alleged amount by the said employees. The petitioner challenges the said order. He contends that though it was not specifically brought to his duty, he verified the functioning of the ADCs entrusted with the sale of bus passes and submitted a report on 16.06.2011, pointing out the deficiencies. The report is said to have given rise to further verification and framing of charges against the erring employees. The petitioner submits that the order of suspension is totally unwarranted. Reliance is placed upon an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19858 of 2011 filed by another Officer of the same depot. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. As a rare gesture, the respondents admit that the petitioner had improved the situation in the depot by overcoming the shortage of supervisors. However, it is alleged that even while he concentrated on one side, he neglected his supervisory duties and that resulted in paving the way for misappropriation of amount by the persons in the lower category. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the suspension ordered against the petitioner is pending enquiry and an exceptional case has to be made for interference with the same. The allegation against the petitioner is not that he has misappropriated any amount by himself. It is stated that on account of the lack of supervision, on the part of the petitioner, the persons, named above, have resorted to misappropriation. The averment of the petitioner that the report submitted by him on 16.06.2011, gave rise to the further verification, remains un- rebutted. A copy of the same is filed along with the material papers. The report submitted to the immediately superior officer was marked to the Depot Manager, and the latter, in turn, ordered enquiry. Normally, petitioner states several facts as to his performance and invariably such claims are discredited by the respondents. In the instant case, the respondents acknowledged that on account of the steps and initiative taken by the petitioner, the financial condition of the depot had substantially improved. Even according to the respondents, the excessive interest shown by the petitioner on some aspects, may have resulted in slackness in the supervision on certain other aspects. Under these circumstances, it is not at all advisable to place an employee of that calibre; particularly where there are no allegations of misappropriation or misconduct against him, under suspension. The question as to whether the petitioner was slack in his supervision and whether it was deliberate or incidental, needs to be examined in the disciplinary proceedings. It is not at all in the interests of the Corporation, to keep the petitioner idle by paying subsistence allowance. There is no scope for the petitioner to meddle with the enquiry also, much less the charges against him are grave. This Court is of the view that the suspension pending enquiry is not in the interests of anybody. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. It is, however, left open to the respondents to transfer the petitioner, if they feel that his presence is detriment to the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:08.09.2011 GJ