THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14272 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as a driver in the Mahaboobnagar Depot of APSRTC. On 2.5.2008, he is said to have attacked another driver, by name V.S. Narayana and caused injuries. On account of this incident, the Depot Manager, the 3rd respondent herein, issued a charge sheet dated 3.5.2008, and vide separate orders of the same date, placed the petitioner under suspension. FIR No.84 of 2008 was also registered against the petitioner, in II Town Police Station. This writ petition is filed, challenging the order of suspension, and for a direction that the departmental enquiry, on the basis of the charge sheet, cannot be proceeded against, till the disposal of the criminal case. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. B.G. Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The relief claimed by the petitioner is two-fold. The first is as regards the order of suspension, and the second is about the stay of departmental proceedings, till the proceedings in the criminal court are concluded. It is clearly mentioned in the order of suspension that the petitioner had assaulted another driver on the platform at the bus-station itself, together with the family members. On the face of it, the act attributed to the petitioner amounts to serious dereliction of duty, apart from a crime. The truth of the allegation against the petitioner needs to be examined, in the departmental proceedings. It cannot be said that there was no basis for the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner, in this regard, is rejected. So far as the stay of departmental proceedings is concerned, it needs to be observed that the allegation made against the petitioner in the charge sheet in the departmental proceedings, as well as in the FIR, is on the basis of some set of facts. If the petitioner is compelled to submit his explanation in the departmental proceedings, it would amount to requiring him to reveal his defence, even before the trial in the criminal court takes place. Therefore, the departmental proceedings need to be deferred, till the criminal case is concluded. At the same time, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the delay in departmental proceedings, at his instance. He cannot be extended the benefit of enhanced subsistence allowance. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of; a) upholding the order of suspension dated 3.5.2008; b) directing that the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, vide charge sheet dated 3.5.2008, shall not be taken up, until the criminal case instituted against the petitioner is disposed of; and c) that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any enhanced subsistence allowance. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 4th July 2008 PAN