IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25581 of 2007 Between: D.Sai Matuthi, S/o.Sri Late Appa Rao, R/o.Tuni E.G Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep.by its Managing Director,Bus Bhavan,Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager, Tuni Depot,A.P.S.R.T.C, E.G Dist .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings No.PA/95(104)/2007 TN Dt.30-10-2007 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set aside the same and pass such order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Conductor in the Tuni Depot of APSRTC. Vide orders, dated 30.10.2007, the second respondent placed the petitioner under suspension. The allegation against the petitioner is that during scrutiny of STAR documents maintained by him, certain discrepancies were pointed out. Charge sheet was issued on the same day. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension. The petitioner contends that he is prepared to face the domestic enquiry and there is no basis for placing him under suspension. The respondents filed counter-affidavit narrating the circumstances that led to the impugned order. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. This is not a case where any irregularity on the part of Conductor was noticed on the spot. The allegations against the petitioner are traceable to the scrutiny of STAR documents maintained by him for a particular trip, dated 18.09.2007. The petitioner is under obligation to meet the charge framed against him. However, it cannot be said that the circumstances warrant the immediate suspension of the petitioner, particularly when the material, constituting the basis for the charges is already in possession of the respondents. Further, while admitting the writ petition on 03.12.2007, this Court granted interim order. The enquiry itself could have been completed hardly within a period of two months. The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondent shall endeavour to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.14.07.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ