HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.11857 of 2010 Date: June 2, 2010 Between: S.V. Reddy, S/o. late S. Ram Reddy, Aged 38 years, Occ: Driver, E.No.271063, APSRTC, Picket Depot, R/o.H.No.1-12, Qutbullapur, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District … Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Picket Depot, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh Order: The petitioner is a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and attached to Picket Depot, Secunderabad. He questions proceedings dated 21-05-2010 issued in No.01/227(1)/2010-PKT by the respondent-Depot Manager, APSRTC, Picket Depot, Secunderabad. On 19-01-2010, the petitioner was performing his duty on the bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-4606 on the route JBS-Srisailam. The said bus failed at Pathalaganga at about 03.30 hours on 20-01-2010 due to gearbox sound. On the ground that the petitioner was not available from 20-01-2010 to 22-01-2010 near the failed bus and also on certain other complaints, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was charge-sheeted. He denied the charges framed against him. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the said charges. In view of the submission of report by the enquiry officer, the impugned show-cause notice is issued, concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer and asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of removal from service should not be imposed against him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are false and there was no negligence on his part. It is further submitted that the petitioner has put in 17 years of service and if he is now removed from service, he will be put to great hardship. It is stated that the petitioner has filed explanation on 28-05-2010 to the Depot Manager, Picket, in reply to the impugned show-cause notice. Though the petitioner denies the allegations leveled against him, it is not for this court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the said allegations at this stage. It is to be seen that, based on the findings of the enquiry officer, a show-cause notice has already been issued to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, even before final orders are passed in the disciplinary proceedings, correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded during the course of the enquiry cannot be determined. The impugned proceedings is only a show- cause notice calling for the explanation of the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from service. As much as the petitioner is already said to have filed explanation to the same on 28-05-2010, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to consider the said explanation of the petitioner before passing final orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. While determining the punishment, if any, to be imposed on the petitioner, the past service rendered by him shall be taken into consideration. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J June 2, 2010 MRR