THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP No. 21168 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. The writ petitioner who was working as a conductor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short `APSRTC’), has been subjected to prosecution under the provisions of Prevention of Atrocities towards Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989. He was arrested on 22.7.2010 at 18.30 Hours. He has been produced before the court concerned on the next day and he has been remanded to judicial custody till 31.7.2010. After he was enlarged on bail, he has reported to duty. But, however, has was not entertained to duty and he was placed under suspension by the proceedings issued by the Depot Manager, Ranigunj-II Depot on 12.8.2010 while simultaneously subjecting him to disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority was required to apply his mind independently as to whether the involvement of the writ petitioner in an offence outside his duty hours and out of the office premises will have a bearing upon continuance in employment or not? If the writ petitioner has been wrongfully framed in a criminal case, which has no bearing upon his performance of duties, he is not required to be placed under suspension at all. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has also drawn my attention to Regulation 18(5) of the APSRTC Employees (CCA) Regulations, 1967, which requires the competent authority or by any authority to which the said authority is subordinate to revoke the same. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel would submit that so far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the regulations require such disciplinary action to be taken and there is no discretion vested in the hands of the disciplinary authority. The matter is bound to be looked into from proper perspective and since the writ petitioner has submitted his representation only on 19.08.2010, no fault would lie in not reviewing the order of suspension. While I quite see some force behind the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the request is made by the writ petitioner only on 19.8.2010 seeking review of the order of suspension dated 12.8.2010, but nonetheless either the Depot Manager or the next superior authority viz., the Regional Manager can review the said suspension order in terms of Regulation 18(5) as expeditiously as possible. The very purpose for which the provision has been incorporated is to ensure that no employee would be confined unnecessarily to prolonged periods of suspension and secondly the corporation has to suffer financial burden of paying such employees subsistence allowance without obtaining or extracting any work from them. Further, the man power deployment will also be adversely effected due to prolonged suspension of employees unnecessarily. Keeping all these factors in mind and taking them into account and also in view of the fact that detailed instructions have been passed by the APSRTC through a Circular No. LC5/82-83, dated 14.2.1983, it’s only appropriate that the disciplinary authority or the next superior authority viz., the Regional Manager concerned may review the entire situation and pass orders in accordance with law in terms of Regulation 18(5) read with Circular instructions No. LC5/82-83, dated 14.2.1983. Let this exercise be completed and appropriate decision may be taken and communicated to the writ petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition therefore stands disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) Dated 25th August 2010 Knk Note: CC in (3) days (b/o) knk