THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.6994 of 2010 Dated: 29.03.2010 Between: S. Satyanarayana .. Petitioner. And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gokavaram Depot, Gokavaram, East Godavari District. .. Respondent ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order of suspension, dated 03.03.2010, passed in proceedings No.PA/95 (17) /10-GKRM. The petitioner is a driver. On 26.02.2010, while he was operating the bus bearing No.28 Z-1826 of Gokavaram Depot, the Deputy Superintendent (T) of ZES, Kakinada, exercised the check and found that the petitioner has collected an amount of Rs.5/- unauthorisedly from a passenger, and on this ground of misconduct, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, and by the aforesaid impugned order, pending enquiry, he is placed under suspension. Sri S.A.Razack, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a plain reading of the allegation leveled against the petitioner, in the impugned order, would not indicate any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, as per the Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, framed by the Corporation, and no public interest is involved. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation framed Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, in exercise of power under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, with regard to the conduct of the employees. As per Regulation 28 (x) of the said Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963, theft, fraud, or misappropriation shall be treated as misconduct. In the case on hand, having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, it cannot be said that he has not committed any misconduct. Further, as per Regulation 18 of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, the appointing authority is empowered to place an employee under suspension from service, pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no public interest involved, but having regard to the nature of allegations, it cannot be said that there is no public interest involved. Collecting the amount unauthorisedly by the petitioner, who is working as a driver, is a grave charge. Thus, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned order, which warrants interference of this Court at this stage. However, taking into account the only charge framed against the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents to complete the enquiry proceedings, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order. However, it is also made clear that while considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, it is also open for the respondents to review the impugned order of suspension, pending finalisation of the enquiry proceedings. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J 29.03.2010 Note: Issue CC in three days B/o v v