IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 9805 of 2004 Between: N. Babu Rao, E-88919, Waltair Depot, R/o Waltair, Visakhapatnam District. .... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Region, at Visakhapatnam. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Waltair, Visakhapatnam District. .....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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing charge sheet and suspending the petitioner from service vide proc No. P2/462 (1)/2004-WTR, dt 15-5-2004 on the allegation that he is responsible for failure of the vehicles on en-route after 5 days of the repairs, without there being any specific mention about the lapse on his part as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Y. VIVEKANANDA SWAMY, S.C. for APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the order of suspension dated 15-5- 2004 issued by third respondent placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into the charges leveled against him. While placing the petitioner under suspension, charges were also framed, calling upon explanation from the petitioner as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him, for which the petitioner also filed his explanation. The petitioner submits that after six days of carrying on the repair, the bus failed en- route due to the breakage of Central Joint bed on 3-5-2004. Petitioner submits that there is no negligence on his part while carrying on his duty and without there being any mis-conduct, the impugned order of suspension is unjust and unreasonable. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Corporation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case, as admittedly the respondents got the power to suspend the petitioner pending enquiry. However, the respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition, with the above observations and directions is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________ 23-07-2004 es/da To 1 The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam Region, at Visakhapatnam. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Waltair, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Two CD copies.