IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4809 of 2009 Between: D. Ram Babu, S/o. Subba Rao, A.P.S.R.T.C., Staff No. 270899, r/o. Pusapadu Village and Post, Inkollu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corportion, Rep by its Managing Director/Chairman, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, Chirala Depot, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent bearing No. 02/95 (18)/09-Chirala dt. 2-3-2009 suspending the petitioner from the post of Driver, without issuing any show cause notice and without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and in violaton of the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS. A.VARALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is a driver in APSRTC, Chirala Depot, Prakasam District. Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him for allowing 32 bags of rice (25 k.gs. each) without the concerned passenger. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Chirala Depot, Prakasam District-2nd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. The order of suspension is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC received notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are baseless and therefore, suspension of the petitioner pending enquiry is not warranted. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation submits that the allegations are based on the statements of checking officials and therefore, it is too early to give any findings on the accusations leveled against the petitioner. 6. The fact remains that the 2nd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for allowing 32 bags of rice (25 k.gs. each) without the concerned passenger in the Meghdoot bus. 7. Since departmental proceedings have already been commenced, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage directing the 2nd respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:06th March, 2009. Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}