THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18901 OF 2009 Dated: 16.09.2009 Between: R. Lokiyalal .. Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad-I Depot, Hyderabad. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.18901 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein is working as a Driver in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order passed by the respondent dated 30.07.2009 placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry in to the alleged negligent driving resulting in an accident to a Super Luxury Bus on 24.7.2009 as arbitrary and illegal. The fact that the vehicle met with an accident on 24.7.2009 while the petitioner was driving it is not in dispute. However, the petitioner states that the allegation that the accident took place on account of negligent driving is absolutely false and without any basis. According to him, while proceeding from Hyderabad to Meeraj on 24.7.2009 the tyre/tube of front left side of the bus had suddenly burst. Since the running bus turned to left and was not under control, to avoid a fatal accident the petitioner had to stop the bus by dashing into a stationed Private Volvo Container. In the process the petitioner got chest and body injuries and he had to undergo treatment from 25.7.2009 to 27.8.2009. It is pleaded that ignoring the risk taken by the petitioner to avert the fatal accident and the grievous injuries suffered by him in the process, the respondent issued a memo dated 25.7.2009 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation for the damage caused to the vehicle which was assessed at Rs.1,50,000/. Thereafter a charge- sheet dated 30.07.2009 has been issued framing the following charges. “1. For having driver Super Luxury Bus No.AP28Z 4421 of H1 depot in negligent manner, without taking anticipation and precautionary measures and dashed at rear side of road side Stationed Private Volvo Container having heavy load machinery resulted four (4) passengers, rest driver received injuries and damages caused heavily, which constitutes mis- conduct under Regulation 28 (ix) (a) & (b) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct Regulations, 1963. 2 . For occurrence of above accident service KMs cancelled, loss of legitimate earnings to Corporation besides inconvenience caused to traveling passengers as well as tarnished image of Corporation among the public, which constitutes misconduct under Reg. 28 (xxxi) of APSRTCS Employees (Conduct) Regs.1963.” On the same day i.e., 30.7.2009 the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect in terms of the Regulation 18 (i) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1967 pending enquiry into the charges levelled against him. While pointing out that none of the passengers made any complaint and except the petitioner none of the passengers was injured, it is contended by the petitioner that the allegation of rash and negligent driving is absolutely false and without any basis. Thus it is contended that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is unjustified and at any rate the impugned order of suspension pending such enquiry is unwarranted. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. It is not in dispute that the Corporation’s vehicle met with an accident while the petitioner was performing the duty as a driver. The respondent Corporation alleges that the accident took place due to negligent driving on the part of the petitioner as he had failed to take necessary precautionary measures. While denying the said allegation, the petitioner states that as a matter of fact accident could be averted due to his diligent and careful driving. It is a matter for enquiry by the competent authority following due process of law and at this stage it is neither necessary nor possible for this Court to express any opinion as to the rival claims. So far as the impugned order of suspension pending such enquiry is concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. As noticed above only contention is that in the facts and circumstances of the case the order of suspension is unwarranted. Since the factum of accident is not in dispute and particularly since the allegations if established, would amount to misconduct under Regulation 28 (ix) of APSRTCS Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1963, the respondent Corporation cannot be held to have acted arbitrarily in placing the petitioner under suspension. Hence, the interference by this Court at this stage is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a direction to the respondent to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the impugned order of suspension shall stand set aside. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.09.2009 gbs