THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6865 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Conductor in the Amalapuram Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 25-02-2011, he was conducting a service between Amalapuram and Kakinada. A check was exercised at Yanam, Stage No.7. No cash and ticket irregularities were noticed. However, a charge-memo was prepared against the petitioner alleging that he kept the rear door of the Bus closed. It appears that an altercation took place, when the petitioner refused to sign the charge memo, and the bus was taken to the Police Station on the route. Narrating these facts, the Depot Manager, the 2nd respondent herein, passed orders dated 05-03-2011, placing the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suspended as a vindictive measure, since he holds a position in the trade union. He contends that the only allegation against the petitioner, namely, closure of the door, is vague, and unsubstantiated. Learned counsel submits that, even if it is true, suitable instructions could have been issued to keep the door open, than placing the petitioner under suspension, or initiating disciplinary proceedings. Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Corporation has provided two doors for services, operated in rural areas, for providing easy entry and exit to the passengers, and closure of one door not only caused inconvenience to the passengers, but also constituted insubordination. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he kept the rear door of the bus, closed. The question as to whether the door was closed in such a way, that it cannot be opened, and if so, who closed the door; is a matter, which needs to be examined in the enquiry, if the respondents so choose. This becomes relevant in view of the fact that the bus itself is not owned by the Corporation. Assuming that the allegation against the petitioner is true, it is not such a serious and grave issue, that warrants the suspension of the Conductor. The allegation made by the petitioner, that he was placed under suspension by inventing excuse, because he holds a position in the trade union; cannot be ignored. This Court is of the view that the suspension of the petitioner, pending enquiry, is not only unwarranted, but also is not in the interest of the Corporation at all. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The reinstatement of the petitioner shall however be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to proceed with the enquiry, if any, instituted against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23-08-2011. KO