THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20133 of 2010 O R D E R: Heard Sri C. Appaiah Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation. The petitioner was working as a Driver with Vizianagaram Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He has challenged the validity of the proceedings bearing No. 01/14(1)/2010-VZM, dated 15/16.07.2010, whereby he was kept under suspension pending enquiry into an allegation levelled against him that he has assaulted another driver belonging to the Corporation at 12.00 hours on 02.07.2010. Though several contentions have been canvassed in the Writ Petition, Sri J. Ugranarasimham, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that on 02.07.2010, the writ petitioner was availing a day off and he was not on duty on that day, but however, on some important work, when he went to the bus station at Vizianagaram, a colleague driver by name Sri B.A. Rao and three others have unnecessarily picked up a scuffle with him and they have also assaulted him. Since the writ petitioner was not on duty on that particular moment, he immediately lodged a complaint with the local police, whereas entertaining a complaint at the hands of Sri B.A. Rao, alleging that it is the writ petitioner, who has assaulted him, the impugned order has been passed. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the Corporation has unjustifiably proceeded against the writ petitioner, who is a victim of the assault, leaving aside the aggressor untouched. As to whether the writ petitioner is guilty of assaulting another employee, as is alleged in the charge sheet drawn bearing the same date as that of the suspension order, or not is the subject matter of enquiry. Only after the fact situation is established during the course of that enquiry, the truth will come out. At this stage, therefore, it is not proper to pronounce any opinion one way or the other. The writ petitioner will have ample power to not only cross-examine the witnesses, who are liable to be produced on behalf of the management of the APSRTC, but is also entitled to lead evidence to establish his innocence in the matter. If the writ petitioner succeeds in establishing that it is not he who has assaulted but it is the other employee who has assaulted him, on 02.07.2010, it is quite unnecessary for me to observe that the appropriate disciplinary authority will take note of such unruly behaviour on the part of its employees and will proceed against any such person with the same amount of sternness with which the writ petitioner is now proceeded against. As of now, whether the petitioner is the aggressor or the victim is a matter which will be depending upon collection of the material evidence at the enquiry. Without completion of the enquiry, it will be speculative to pronounce any opinion in that regard. Since the writ petitioner has been placed under suspension, I consider it appropriate to direct that the charge levelled against the writ petitioner be enquired into as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the end of November 2010. Depending upon the material evidence that is collected, suitable and appropriate action be initiated against the erring employees. Placing an employee under suspension per se does not amount to imposition of any punishment. Discipline, Control and Appeal Rules of the APSRTC Employees empower the disciplinary authority to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry. So long as the period of suspension is not prolonged and the power of suspension has been properly used, seldom the Courts would be interfering with this exercise. It is therefore, appropriate that the disciplinary enquiry contemplated against the petitioner should be finalised at the earliest as directed above. I, therefore, do not see any reason or justification for entertaining this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. --------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 16th August 2010 ksld