IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:27755 of 2008 Between: M. Srinivas S/o. Late Pentaiah R/o. Village Khandi, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. by the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Sanga Reddy Medak District. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narayankhed Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents:SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in placing the petitioner under suspension by order, dated 24.11.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Heard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is a driver of respondent No.1 Corporation. On 21.11.2008, the petitioner was allegedly caught redhanded by a Security Guard, when he was taking out vehicle bearing registration No.AP11 Z 2024 at 12.45 hrs with the following material. 1) Aluminium timing board E.4 2) Aluminium Destination Board E.3 and 3) Aluminium Sheet E.1. Based on the said incident, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. On 24.11.2008, charge sheet was issued with the following charge: “Charge 1: For having committed theft of destination and timing boards and caught redhanded by the on duty S.G., while taking out the vehicle No.AP11 Z 2024 on 21.11.2008, enroute Mubi-Yaj which constituted misconduct under Reg.28(X) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963.” On the same day, another proceedings were issued placing the petitioner under suspension. Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having issued the charge sheet, respondent No.3 issued the impugned order of suspension even without waiting for receiving the explanation of the petitioner and considering the same. In my considered view, there is no need for respondent No.3 to wait for receiving explanation for the purpose of exercising the power of suspension. Necessity of placing an employee under suspension depends upon the gravity of the charge and the exigencies warranting such suspension. Prima facie, I am of the view that the charge of being caught redhanded while attempting to steal the property of the Corporation is serious enough to place an employee under suspension. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned order of suspension. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed without going into the issues raised by the petitioner on merits regarding his culpability. It is for the enquiry officer to consider the stand of the petitioner and for the disciplinary authority to decide on the action to be taken, considering the enquiry report. The respondents are, however, directed to finalise the disciplinary proceedings within two months. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.36370 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd DECEMBER, 2008. kvni