IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 21604 of 2008 Between: 1 Md. Taj, S/o. Md. Dismal, E. 54042, Thorru Depot, Warangal District. 2 Md. F. Ahmed, S/o. Moulana Saheb, E. 72140, Warangal-I Depot, Warangal District. 3 Y. Chakdrapani, S/o. Lingaiah, E. 58455, Thorru Depot, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad -20. 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. byits Depot Manager, Thorrur,Warangal 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 call for the records from the 2nd respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Order of Suspension issued by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No. P3/474(1)/2008-RM-WL dated 11- 9-2008 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, amounts to victimization and unfair labour practice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and grant all consquential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 21604 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is directed against an order made by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.P3/474(1)/2008- RM-WL dated 11.9.2008 suspending the petitioners from service pending certain allegations against them. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that absolutely no case is made out against the petitioners and there was no public interest involved in keeping the petitioners under suspending during the pendency of the allegations made against them. I have perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. I am of the prima facie opinion that the charges framed against the petitioners are serious in nature and keeping the petitioners under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry against them does not appear to be unreasonable and cannot be said to be not in the public interest. The petitioners have not made out any case calling for interference of this Court. The suspension is not a punishment but it is only to enable the respondents to conduct a fair enquiry into the matter. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry against the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 07-11-2008. MVB.