IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:25259 of 2008 Between: Ch. V.R.S. Rao S/o. Krishna Murthy R/o. Paderu, Visakhapatnam Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC. Rep. by Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager APSRTC. DBS Complex, Visakhapatnam. 3 The APSRTC. VSP & Paderu Visakhapatnam Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents:MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside order, dated 01.11.2008 passed by respondent No.3. Heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner is a Conductor of respondent No.1 Corporation. By the impugned order, he was kept under suspension on the ground of insubordination and misbehaviour with the On Duty Supervisor by using abusive language. I have carefully gone through the impugned order of suspension. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that even if the allegations against the petitioner are taken on their face value, the same does not warrant his suspension. Ordinarily, an employee is suspended pending enquiry into grave charges and in public interest. Even assuming that the petitioner indulged in insubordination, his immediate suspension does not in any manner serve public interest. The impugned order is evidently in the nature of an interim punishment for the so-called insubordination of the petitioner, which is never the purpose of suspension of an employee. If after the enquiry, the petitioner is found guilty of insubordination and any other misconduct, by all means, the Corporation can pass appropriate order imposing appropriate penalties on the petitioner. In my considered view, placing the petitioner under suspension on the allegations contained in the impugned order and in the absence of any prima facie conclusion of the respondents that the petitioner’s suspension serves public interest, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents shall be free to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for his alleged misconduct and pass appropriate orders thereon. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni