THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24376 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a driver in Musheerabad II depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. While he was driving a bus bearing No. AP 11Z 7067 on 09.06.2011 on the route from Koti to Patancheruvu, an accident took place, said to be on account of failure of brake. Taking the same into account, the Depot Manager, the respondent herein issued a charge sheet on 06.07.2011 and on the same day through a separate order, he placed the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner challenges the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 07.06.2011, the bus was not in a good condition and the log sheet pertaining to the vehicle discloses that the defects mentioned earlier were not rectified. He contends that the bus was turned towards the left side of the road to save the scooterist who himself was involved in the accident and in the process, the damage had occurred to the bus. Learned standing counsel for the respondent contends that the question as to whether the petitioner acted with due diligence while driving the bus, needs to be considered in the enquiry and that the order of suspension does not warrant interference. The allegation against the petitioner is that on account of his negligence, extensive damage was caused to the vehicle. The petitioner enclosed copies of the log sheets pertaining to the vehicle. One of the defects pointed out was that breke-roll was heavy and that air was leaking. It is not known as to whether those defects were rectified. Be that as it may, a non fatal accident particularly on the roads in the Hyderabad, cannot, by itself be treated as a serious act of misconduct. The question as to whether the petitioner acted with due diligence needs to be considered in the ongoing enquiry. This Court is of the view that while the petitioner cannot be continued under suspension, the Corporation also needs to be compensated for the damage to the vehicle. A balancing act can be evloved. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside on the condition that the respondent shall be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month, from the salary of the petitioner after reinstating him; till the enquiry is completed. Further action that must ensue, would depend upon the outcome of the enquiry. The enquiry shall be completed within a period of three months. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:30.08.2011. lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24376 of 2011 Dt. 30.08.2011