IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5737 of 2009 Between: A.Venkataiah, S/o. Komuraiah, E.No.650875, R/o.H.No.16-3-1050, Vidyanagar Colony, Khammam Road, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Depot Manager, Warangal-1 Depot, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, orderor Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the suspension Order issued by the 2nd respndent in proceeidngs No.01/2(22)/2008-WL-I, dated 23.02.2009 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power, amounts to an act of victimization and unfair labour practice and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Consititution of India: and grant all consequential benefits; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 5737 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner calls in question in this writ petition the action of the 2nd respondent in keeping him under suspension pending departmental enquiry. 2. The petitioner is a driver in the respondent Corporation. The Bus driven by him met with an accident on 29-12-2008. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him for his rash and negligent driving. Pending enquiry 2nd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings No. ½(22)/2008-WL-1, dated 23-2-2009. The said order is under challenged in this writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt. P. Rajini, learned standing counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondent Corporation. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not negligent and the accident occurred due to sudden stopping of the Tractor, which was going ahead of the bus driven by the petitioner. 6. The question whether the accident occurred due to negligent driving by the driver of the bus or driver of the tractor is required to be decided during the departmental enquiry. It is too early to record any finding as to which of the two drivers i.e. driver of the bus (Petitioner) or driver of the Tractor is responsible for the accident. 7. Since the petitioner already submitted explanation to the charge memo, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to expedite the disciplinary proceedings and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 19th March, 2009 KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 5737 OF 2009 19th March, 2009.