THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 1677 OF 2011 DATED: 11-04-2011. Between Laxman Singh … Petitioner And 1.Depot Manager, APSRTC, Miyapur-1 Depot, Sanathnagar Division, Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.1677 OF 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of mandamus declaring that issuing of charge sheet along with suspension order No.02/95 (02)/2011-MYP-1, dated 25-01-2011 without any misconduct under Conduct Regulations 1963 on the ground of serious cash and ticket irregularities without framing any charge of cash and ticket irregularities against the petitioner is illegal, unjust and contrary to law and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the suspension order directing the respondent to take the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. 2. As seen from the record, the following charges were levelled against the petitioner: Charge No.1: For having checked your service bus by TTIs at Ramdevguda Stag 3/2 at about 16.50 hours and found that the service No.98/2 operated with Destination Board of Kukatpally to Mehdipatnam instead of exhibiting actual route course destination board with Skelton service without picking up the enroute passengers while proceeding to Vasavi Engineering College, Ibrahimbagh as per MTD-141 Card instructions which resulted in loss of legitimate revenue of Corporation and inconvenience to traveling public and constitutes misconduct under Clause 28 (xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. Charge No.2: For having closed ticket tray numbers of all denominations up to stage NO.1 (Vasavi Eng.College) in advance except Rs.4/- Rs.5/- and Rs.6/- denomination tickets and failed to account the sale proceeds of Rs.5/- den. Tickets bearing No.076/077428 to 43528 tickets) up to Check point (stage 3/2) despite crossing the fare stages in star document No.090/114232. Hence the TTIs marked as XXX in star (Rs.4/-, Rs.5/- and Rs.6/- den. Only) duly confiscated the str and issued substitute star for further operation of service bus which constitutes misconduct under Clause 28 (vi-a) (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that three buses were going in front of the bus of the petitioner, which resulted no passengers boarded in his bus, that there is no cash irregularities and without conducting any enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension and hence, he prays to set aside the same. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the corporation contended that serious lapses were committed by the petitioner, that the correct name board was not exhibited to enable the passengers to board the bus, that the petitioner failed to account for the sale proceeds in respect of certain tickets numbers, which is serious irregularity, that considering the charges levelled against the petitioner, he was rightly placed under suspension and hence, the order under challenge needs no interference by this Court. 5. The allegations mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are relating to factual aspects of the case, which cannot be decided or determined by this Court exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of the Enquiry Officer to pass appropriate orders on the disputed facts. Therefore, the suspension order cannot be shown to be illegal or contrary to the regulations of the APSRTC in view of the fact that serious allegations with regard to not accounting for the sale proceeds in respect of certain tickets and also not exhibiting correct display board were committed, which caused loss of revenue to APSRTC. In view of the fact that the petitioner challenged the suspension order immediately before this Court and time for giving explanation was expired, reasonable time can be granted to the petitioner for giving his explanation to the charge memo. Therefore, the petitioner is granted two weeks time from today for giving explanation to the charge memo and the same has to be decided in accordance with the regulations of APSRTC. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 11-04-2011 Hsd