IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 8206 of 2011 Between: T.Ashok …PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager. ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 8206 of 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed challenging the order of suspension No.01/535(8)/11-RNG-II, dated 21.03.2011 passed by the respondent, and the modifying the charges framed in the charge memo No.A1/425725, dated 4.3.2011 after acknowledging the explanation and framing new charges calling AMT (T)/RNG-II report dated 18.3.2001. 2. The petitioner is working as Driver in Ranigunj Depot-II of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The Charge Memo, dated 04.03.2011 was issued to the petitioner for his unauthorized cancellation of the trip for the bus service No. 91/1, on route No.86 on 04.03.2011. Basing on the charges, the petitioner was called to submit his explanation within seven days from the date of Charge Memo. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that due to traffic jam the petitioner could not operate the bus; that for that reason, suspension is not a correct one; that on the representation of rival union leaders, the respondent obtained a further report so as to place the petitioner under suspension and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. There cannot be any dispute that an order of interim suspension can only be made after the authority comes to a conclusion that there is a sufficient reason for keeping an employee under suspension i.e., in other words there has to be a proper application of mind and satisfaction that suspension is called for in a given case. 5. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is nothing to do with closure of statistical return of the bus, for which the Conductor alone is responsible. But, the charges are leveled against the petitioner as well as Conductor for cancellation of third trip which has to be operated from Jamia Osmania to Secunderabad and back. Both of them have not informed the concerned authority about the traffic jam. From the material placed on record, it is clear prima facie, petitioner was negligent in cancelling the trip without taking any instructions from the Traffic Supervisor of Corporation and thereby causing not only loss of revenue to Corporation but also caused inconvenience to the commuters. Whether the Driver or the Conductor or both have to maintain statistical return of the bus in respect of the routes, they have to operate has to be decided during the course of enquiry. Normally this Court would not interfere with the order of suspension pending enquiry unless there is malafide exercise of power. No such malafides are attributed against the respondent. The petitioner can as well submit his explanation to the charge memo issued to him. The impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 6. In view of the fact that immediately after receipt of charge memo, the petitioner rushed to this Court, some time may be granted for submission of his explanation to the charge memo, dated 04.03.2011. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed directing the petitioner to submit his explanation to the charge memo, dated 04.03.2011 within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 11, 2010 YVL