IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10513 of 2008 Between: L.S.H. Sundarnath S/o L.B. Swaminathan r/o B-I, Kaveri Apartments, IE, Dorai Swamy 2nd street, Korattur, Chennai-600 080. ... PETITIONER AND 1 APSRTC, rep byits Depot Manager, Satyavedu Bus Depot, Chittoor District. 2 APSRTC, rep by its Assistant Traffic Manager, Chennai ...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 order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the proceedings No. 01/25(01)/08-STVD, dt 21-4-2008 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the proceedings No. 01/15901)/08-STVD., dt 21-04-2008 issued by the 1st respondent and pass such further other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10513 OF 2008 O R D E R: The APSRTC had an operational point at Chennai, for making arrangement for its busses, which are operated up to that place. The petitioner was employed as a Shramik, at that place. He was attached to the Sathyavedu Depot of the Corporation. The petitioner was placed under suspension, vide order dated 21.4.2008, passed by the Depot Manager, the 1st respondent, stating inter alia that the petitioner reported to duty on 12.4.2008 at 10 A.M., instead of 6 A.M., and when he was questioned about such late reporting, by the Ticket Inspector Grade-III, he indulged in unnecessary argument, and ultimately had abused the Ticket Inspector in vulgar language, and thereafter assaulted him. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension, stating that the so-called preliminary enquiry was conducted, by an employee of Puttur Depot, who has no jurisdiction, in this regard. He denies the allegations made in the order of suspension. Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 1st respondent acted upon a report said to have been prepared by a person, who has no concern with the matter. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, and the order of suspension, pending enquiry, cannot be interfered with. An effort is made to convince this court that the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner was improper, inasmuch as a report was obtained from an employee of Puttur Depot. The said preliminary report appears to have been obtained from an Official, who is nearer to Chennai. By itself, the preliminary report did not bring about any situation, and at the most, it became a source of information. The allegation, which is made against the petitioner, is somewhat serious, and the order of suspension does not warrant interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, and the 2nd respondent is directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 2nd May 2008 PAN