THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14621 of 2010 Dated: 06.07.2010 Between: Sangem Saraiah. .. Petitioner. And The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: It appears, the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) with effect from 08.01.1999 and while serving as such, he was issued with charge sheet on 04.06.2010 alleging that he got employment to the post of Conductor in the Corporation on the strength of S.S.C certificate tampered with inflated marks shown as 419/5 (excluding Hindi) as against the original marks of 256 (including Hindi) and, thereby, cheated the Corporation which amounts to misconduct. Basing on this allegation, simultaneously, he was suspended from service vide suspension order dated 04.06.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the Corporation appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the respondent Corporation in the year 1999 and while working as such with the 3rd respondent depot, on a complaint made by one Sai Kumar, he was issued with charge sheet and suspended from service on the basis of the allegations referred above. The only point to be considered in this writ petition is: “Whether there is any necessity of continuing the petitioner under suspension from service during pendency of the enquiry”. The alleged manipulation of the marks memo by the petitioner is a matter of record. So, the question of the petitioner tampering with the records or influencing any witnesses does not arise. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is no necessity of continuing the petitioner under suspension during pendency of the enquiry and the impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned suspension order and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. However, it is made clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter and passing appropriate orders as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 06.07.2010 v v