THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 23393 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Driver in the Tuni Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C., the 2nd respondent herein. On 14-08-2010, he was on rest. However, on the instructions issued by the 2nd respondent, he was posted to duty, and drove the bus between Kakinada and Baladicheruvu. He is entitled for double duty allowance, and it was payable within a week. The petitioner attended the depot on 24-08-2010, for receiving the double duty allowance. It appears that he was made to wait for 4 to 5 hours on that day, which incidentally was his duty off. The discussion ensued between the officials of the depot and the petitioner. On the allegation that the petitioner indulged in conversation in aggressive language, the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 31-08-2010, placing the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Normally this Court would not interfere with the orders of suspension, pending enquiry. Had there been any acts of misappropriation, or misconduct on the part of the petitioner, things would have been different. Even if one goes by the contents of the order of suspension, prima facie it does not disclose any act of serious misconduct, warranting suspension, pending enquiry. The purport of the discussion is that, the petitioner expressed his displeasure for the delay of about 4 to 5 hours in paying the double duty allowance, even while such amount was paid to other employees, instantly. The concerned official is said to have been accosted the petitioner, as to whether he has taken liquor. Out of frustration, the petitioner is said to have replied that, he took the liquor, and there is nothing wrong, since it was a holiday. Even this discussion was totally outside the scope of enquiry; and this Court is of the view that the situation does not warrant suspension, pending enquiry. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21-09-2010. KO