IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14484 of 2008 Between: M. Venkateswar Rao S/o. M. Adinarayana Secunderabad Region, Hyderabad , R/o. B.38, F-3, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad-500 057 ..... PETITIONER AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT 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 call for the records from the respondent and issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Manamus, declaring that the Suspension Order issued by the Respondent in Proceedings NO. EC/136(1)/2008-PD dt. 20-5-2008 and the Charge Sheet dt. 26-5-2008 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law arbitrary in violation of Principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer in A.P.S.R.T.C. He was arrested in connection with Crime No.40 of 2008 on the file of C.K.Dinne Police Station, Kadapa District on 17.05.2008 and was released on bail on 24.05.2008. The respondent placed the petitioner under suspension on 20.05.2008 on the sole ground that he was detained in connection with the criminal case. Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued on 26.05.2008. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 26.05.2008, with a request to the respondent to revoke the order of suspension. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. The petitioner places reliance upon a Circular No.LC5/82- 83, dated 14.02.1983, and Regulation 18 (6) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (CC & A) Regulations, 1967 (for short ‘the Regulations’). Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The only ground on which the petitioner was placed under suspension was that he was arrested in connection with the criminal case. Regulation 18(2) of the Regulations mandates that an employee shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension in case he is arrested in connection with a criminal case. It is no doubt true that Regulation 18(6) of the Regulations empowers the appointing authority to revoke the order of suspension in case the continued suspension of an employee is unwarranted. Ultimately, it is for the appointing authority to review the matter and to arrive at a proper conclusion. The continued suspension of an employee would not be in the interest of the organization also, particularly where the charges do not relate to the misconduct in terms of Regulations. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to examine the representation, dated 26.05.2008, submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 08.07.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}