IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18130 of 2008 Between: 1 M.K. Reddy, S/o. Maddi Reddy, E 500646, Prakasam District. 2 K. Sanjeeva Rao, S/o. K. Narasimham, E 504786, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ongole, 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 will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in placing the petitioners under suspension by virtue of the impugned proceedings No. 01/114(8)/2008 OGL dated 12-08- 2008, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners by lodging the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners are working as Conductors in Ongole Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. In the month of July 2008, they were assigned the duties of issuance of concessional bus passes to the students of various institutions. A complaint was received from the students of a private institution to the eﬀect that the petitioners collected Rs.15/- as cost of the application form, as against Rs.13/-. Preliminary enquiry was conducted by the second respondent, through Assistant Manager. On the basis of a report, dated 27.07.2008, submitted by the Assistant Manager, the second respondent issued individual orders, dated 12.08.2008, placing the petitioners under suspension. On the same day, he has also issued a charge sheets to the petitioners. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the orders of suspension. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation that the petitioners collected Rs.2/- extra for the application forms towards cost, was without any basis and even the so-called complainants have themselves deposed before the Enquiry Oﬃcer to the eﬀect that they made the allegation almost as a retaliation against the staﬀ of the Depot for not stopping the buses near their college. He contends that there was absolutely no basis for the respondents in placing the petitioners under suspension. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there was a speciﬁc complaint against the petitioners about their collecting extra amount towards cost of the application form and that the truth or otherwise thereof needs to be established in the domestic enquiry. He contends that the order of suspension cannot be said to be without any basis. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they have collected Rs.2/- on every application form sold by them to the students for issuance of concessional bus pass. The question as to whether the allegation against the petitioners is true or not is a matter that needs to be examined in the departmental proceedings and other steps at the level of the second respondent. This Court is conscious of the fact that it would be in rare cases that orders of suspension can be interfered with, that too, on limited grounds. One of it is that even if the facts on record up to the stage of suspension are taken on their face value, no case can be said to have been made out. Viewed in this context, it becomes evident that though the students have submitted a complaint alleging that the petitioners have collected Rs.2/- for each application form in excess of actual cost, they have deposed before the Enquiry Oﬃcer to the eﬀect that the said allegation was made in the context of the buses being not stopped near their college. If that is true, it has almost become a child play. The livelihood of the petitioners cannot be put at stake on the strength of uncertain and slippery allegations. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.08.2008. Note: Issue cc in one week. kdl