IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17362 of 2008 Between: Md.S. Babu S/o.Sharif APSRTC,Tadepalli Gudem Depot,R/o.4-14-13/1,Subbaraopet Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND The Asst.Manager (T) Enquiries, O/o.Regional Manager APSRTC, Eluru, West Godavari District .....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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to receive the representation of the petitioner dated 1.7.2008 seeking to call for the passengers and Service driver 8.5.2008 as they are main witnesses in the complaint against the petitioner is bad illegal, void and violative of Art.14,16, & 21 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMANA ALLU Counsel for the Respondent: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Conductor in Tadepalligudem Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 08.05.2008, he was conducting a bus on the route from Tadepalligudem to Bhadrachalam. On the return journey, the bus was checked at stage No.27. Alleging that the petitioner collected Rs.48/- from a batch of three passengers, but issued unrelated tickets, the Depot Manager, Tadepalligudem, issued a charge sheet, dated 16.05.2008. The petitioner submitted an explanation, denying the charges. Therefter, the Assistant Manager, the respondent herein, is appointed as Enquiry Officer. The dates of enquiry were also notified. The petitioner filed two representations, with a request to the respondent to summon the Driver of the bus as well as the passengers. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The domestic enquiry is yet to commence. The petitioner raised objection to the method of enquiry, at the initial stage itself. His representation is very vague and the purpose for which he intends to examine the witnesses also not mentioned. Be that as it may, it is for the management of the Corporation, to adduce its evidence in the domestic enquiry. The petitioner would have an opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses. Thereafter, the petitioner shall have to depose as a witness. It is only when the petitioner feels that further evidence is needed on his behalf, he has to make a representation, duly indicating the purpose for which he proposes to examine the witnesses. As and when such application is made, the respondent shall consider it and pass appropriate orders thereon. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the petitioner shall participate in the enquiry and make a representation, if any, only after he deposed as a witness. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.11.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ