IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1884 of 2008 Between: T.Srinivas S/o.Lingaiah Medak Depot, R/o.Medak,Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., rep.by its Managing Director musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Medak Region at Sangareddy 3 The Depot manager, APSRTC., Medak, Medak District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in suspending the petitioner from service on the allegation of mistakes in the Conductor Statistical returns(SRs) and on suspected temporary misappropriation by checking the SRs (Statisstical Return) after 3 months vide Proc.No.02/95(41)/07-Medak dated 24.12.2007 and the charge sheet as illegal, Un-warranted contrary to circular instructions unjust and arbitrary, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1884 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a conductor in Medak Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 24.12.2007, the 3rd respondent herein issued a charge sheet to the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner had failed to remit a sum of Rs.19,483/-, representing the sale proceeds of certain tickets. Two other related charges to this allegation were also framed. On the same day, the 3rd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he did not resort to any irregularity or misconduct and that the suspicion, as to the entries in the Star Document, is treated as the basis, for placing him under suspension and for framing charges. The respondents filed counter affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that the charges leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature and though the truth or otherwise of the same needs to be established in the departmental enquiry, it is not at all safe to keep him on duty. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the charges framed against the petitioner discloses that he is accused of not remitting a sum of Rs.19,483/-, being the sale proceeds of tickets. Though the petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of the said charge, till it is proved, the gravity of the charge cannot be ignored, having regard to the nature of duties to be performed by the petitioner. It is not even alleged that the 3rd respondent does not have the jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension or that there does not exist any material, for the charges alleged against him. The petitioner would have full opportunity to prove his innocence in the departmental enquiry. His interests can be protected, by directing the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, upholding the order of suspension, but directing the 3rd respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 07.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1884 of 2008 Date: 07.07.2008 JSU