IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5275 of 2009 Between: N.Thulchya S/o.Heerman R/o.Agraharam Thanda, Vangoor Mandal, Kalwakurthi Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, represented by itsVice Chairman & Managing Director. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Kalwakurthi Depot, Kalwakurthi, Mahabubnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) declare the Charge Sheet No. 01/2(15)/2008-KLKY, Dated 26.12.2008 issued by the Respondents as illegal and arbitrary; (ii) declare the Suspension order No. 01/2(15)/2008-KLKY, Dated 26.12.2008 issued by the Respondents as illegal and arbitrary; and (iii) consequently set aside the same and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5275 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner joined the Respondent Corporation on 1-1- 1990 as a casual driver. His services were regularized on 1-1-1992. While conducting the bus bearing No. AP- 10 Z-7866 from Kalwakurthy to Nagarkurnool on 7-12-2008, an accident occurred wherein two pedestrians died and one person sustained injuries. A preliminary enquiry came to be conducted by Deputy Superintendent (T) Kalwakurthy. Basing on the preliminary enquiry report, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry. A criminal case was also registered against the petitioner for his rash and negligent driving. The criminal case is pending investigation vide Crime No.238/2009 of Kalwakurthy Police Station. The petitioner filed the writ petition assailing the continuance of the Departmental proceedings and his suspension pending enquiry. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt. B.G. Uma Devi, learned standing counsel of APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Bus which was entrusted to the petitioner had a mechanical defect on 5-12- 2008 and 6-12-2008 and on 7-12-2008 and the respondent Authorities compelled the petitioner to take Bus for service without rectifying the defects and therefore, the petitioner was not responsible for the accident occurred on 7-12-2008. Learned counsel refers the complaint given by Yadaiah-driver to buttress her submission that the vehicle entrusted to the petitioner had mechanical defects. A further submission has been made that the criminal case and the departmental proceedings are based on the same set of allegation and therefore, continuance of the departmental proceeding pending the criminal case would cause much prejudice to the petitioner in pleading his evidence in the criminal case. 5. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the spot explanation given by the petitioner and the conductor of the Bus did not speak of any mechanical defects in the Bus handled by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was to be held responsible for causing accident. He would also contend that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings stand on different footings and therefore the departmental proceedings need not be stayed pending the criminal case against the petitioner. 6. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that the bus handled by the petitioner had a mechanical defects and therefore, the petitioner was not at all responsible for the accident. 7. Suspension order has been proceeded by a spot enquiry. Basing on the spot enquiry, a charge memo can be issued to the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to substantiate his contention during the enquiry as to whether the Bus handled by him had mechanical defect as on 7-12-2008 and that he was not responsible for the accident. Therefore, it is too early to record any finding as to the cause of the accident. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the Divisional Manager of Mahaboobnagar for revocation of suspension pending enquiry. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 26th March, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5275 OF 2009 26th March, 2009.