IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32744 of 2011 Between: R.S.Narayana … Petitioner And APSRTC., Rep.by its MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32744 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 19.11.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary mala fide and without jurisdiction and contrary to APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations 1967 and consequently set aside the same. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he has been working as Conductor in the 2nd respondent’s Depot. While performing his duty, check was exercised and found certain irregularities and kept him under suspension vide order dated 19.11.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation on which the petitioner was kept under suspension, does not fall within any of the enumerated irregularities contemplated under the Corporation’s Regulations. Therefore, his suspension is bad and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation would submit that suspension pending enquiry is not a punishment and the petitioner has got two options viz., 1) he can seek direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry within the reasonable time and 2) assailing the impugned suspension order appeal lies before the appellate authority. In response to the said contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities may be directed to complete the enquiry within the reasonable time. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was kept under suspension on the alleged irregularities found during the course of check exercised by the respondents’ authorities. It is a well settled principle in the judgment reported in the case of DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL RANGE, KURNOOL DISTRICT AND OTHERS v. R.S. MADHUBABU, RSI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL[1] that suspension pending enquiry cannot be interfered with and the Courts can direct only to conclude and complete the proceedings. Para 18 of the said order reads as under: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of suspension passed by competent authority, particularly when the authorities have got the power under Rule 8 of the APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry. All the aspects have to be gone into by the fact finding authority and the enquiry will disclose the truth and otherwise of the allegations. Further, it is settled preposition of law that suspension pending enquiry cannot be interfered with and the Courts can direct only to conclude and complete the proceedings. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal instead of directing the authorities to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent within the time frame, exceeded its limit and over stepped its jurisdiction by directing the authorities that he should be transferred to a far off place, which is impermissible under law and unwarranted. As the task undertaken by the Tribunal is impermissible under law, the order passed by it suffers from various serious legal infirmities and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also following the said judgment, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction. The respondents are directed to complete the enquiry, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Further, the respondents are directed to consider for payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner, during the suspension period, in accordance with law. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 28.12.2011 LSK [1] 2009 (4) ALT 530 (D.B.)