THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19858 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Assistant Manager (Traffic) in Yadagirigutta Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. Through proceedings, dated 08.07.2011, respondent No.2 placed him under suspension. The allegation against the petitioner is that he did not properly supervise the remittances into the Depot and he did not notice the misappropriation to the tune of Rs.3,79,389/- by two Assistant Depot Clerks, by name B.Shanthaiah and M.A.Raheem. The petitioner submits that it is the duty of the Depot Clerk to ensure that the remittances are made every day and as a supervising authority, he noticed the irregularities on 16.06.2011 and soon thereafter, brought the matter to the notice of the Depot Manager. He further submits that the suspension pending enquiry ordered against him is totally unwarranted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he lacked supervision and failed to notice the acts of misappropriation on the part of two Assistant Depot Clerks. Had there been an inkling of allegation against the petitioner as to misappropriation, this Court would not have entertained the writ petition at all. Respondent No.2 alleges that the petitioner lacked proper sense of supervision. The truth or otherwise of the same needs to be examined in the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. One factor that weighs with this Court is that much before the suspension order was issued, the petitioner addressed a letter, dated 10.06.2011, to the Depot Manager that two Assistant Depot Clerks have not remitted the amounts with the Depot Clerk. The Depot Manager, in turn, marked the letter to the Chief Inspector. The matter was verified later on and necessary steps were initiated against the individuals concerned. The enquiry is still going on. Once it is clear that the petitioner is not accused of misappropriation and that he is not the person entrusted with the duty to collect or remit the amount directly, the suspension may not be in the interest of the Corporation. Further, from the correspondence that ensued from the Depot Manager, it is evident that there is acute shortage of the Assistant Managers in the Depot. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The reinstatement of the petitioner shall, however, be without prejudice to the enquiry and if the respondents feel that the presence of the petitioner at Yadagirigutta hinders the proceedings, it shall be open to them to transfer him to any other place. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.08.2011 kdl