IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3675 of 2009 Between: T. Sattaiah, S/o. Kishan Singh, E.No. 281457, APSRTC, Kalwakurthy Depot, R/o. H.NO. 1-8-97/13- B/D2, T.D. Gutta, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kalwakurthy Depot, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a Writ or Order or directino more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent in suspending petitioner vide proceedings No. P1/114(1)/2009-KLKY dated 09-02-2009 as illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate and set aside the same and consequenty direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as a driver forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No . 3675 of 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner was appointed as Driver in APSRTC in the year 1996 in Mahabubnagar District. He worked in various depots of Mahabubnagar District. Presently he is working in Kalwakurthy Depot of Mahabubnagar District, APSRTC. A charge memo was served on him on 9.2.2009 alleging that on 31-01-2009, he drove the vehicle No. AP. 11 Z 3717 on route Hyderabad - Kalwakurthy under the influence of intoxication. The respondent put the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. The order of suspension is challenged in this writ petition. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt. B.G. Uma Devi, learned standing counsel for APSRTC, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not subjected to any medical examination before coming to a conclusion that he drove the vehicle under the influence of intoxication on 31.01.2009 and therefore, order of suspension cannot be sustained. 5. The question whether he drove the vehicle under the influence of intoxication is the subject matter of the enquiry. Indisputably the petitioner submitted explanation to the charge memo. Such is the situation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to complete disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ___________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 25-02-2009 Note: C.C. in one week B/o. Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}