IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13930 of 2008 Between: P. Lakudu, S/o. Suranna, E.No. 86961, Hanaman Nagar, Near Over Head Tank, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, ELURU, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to in view of the above facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the records from the Respondents herein by issuing a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the Charge Sheet No. 01/197(01)/08-ELR, dt. 30-4-2008 and suspension Order No. 01/197 (01/2008-ELR, dt. 30-4-2008 of the Respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, without application of mind and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India . Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Conductor in Eluru Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 24.03.2008, he was put on duty on a service from Eluru to Machilipatnam. On 30.04.2008, the respondent issued a charge sheet alleging that the petitioner failed to stop the bus at Kalaparru point, when two passengers hailed to stop the bus. On the same day, through a separate order, the respondent placed the petitioner under suspension and the same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri P.Sridhar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that at the instance of two passengers mentioned in the charge sheet, the bus was stopped and on finding that the bus was proceeding to Machilipatnam, they did not board it, stating that they have to go to Vijayawada. He contends that the allegations, even if true, cannot constitute the basis for suspension. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the correctness or otherwise of the allegation against the petitioner needs to be proved during departmental enquiry and no interference is warranted with the order of suspension. The only charge levelled against the petitioner reads as under: “You have failed to stop the bus at Kalaparru point when a batch of two passengers hailed to stop your bus while you were conducting the Bus No.AP 37W 2475 on 24.03.2008 on the route Eluru- Machilipatnam as special service and caused inconvenience to the travelling public and loss to the Corporation which amounts to misconduct under Reg.28 (ix)(a) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963”. Neither any cash and ticket irregularities, nor any acts of insubordination are pointed out. The petitioner offered an explanation to the effect that the bus was, in fact, stopped and the passengers did not board in it, on the ground that they have to go to Vijayawada. The suspension pending enquiry can be resorted to only when the enquiry is into grave charges. Placing an employee under suspension as a matter of course would not only shake the confidence of the employee, but also would cause loss to the employer. Even if the charge is taken on its face value, this Court is of the view that it cannot constitute the basis for placing the petitioner under suspension. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ ` L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:01.07.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}