IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2447 of 2009 Between: S.K.A.Basha S/o.S.K,.Sabjan C/o.D.No.10/45, Jendaman Street Nagireddy Palli Post, Nandaluru Mandal Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rajampeta Depot Rajampeta, Kadapa 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 issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.M1/227(1)/09-RJPT dated 29.1.2009 of th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct respondent to allow the petitioner to discharge the duties of Mechanic in Rajampeta Depot in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.D.GOWD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2447 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioner was appointed as Mechanic on 15-10-1977 in the Respondent Corporation. A charge memo came to be issued to him alleging that he slept during duty hours and thereby shift maintenance in the garage has been badly affected. Pending enquiry he came to be kept under suspension by the Depot Manager APSRTC Rajampeta-Respondent. The suspension order is under challenged in this writ petition. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission Smt. W.V.S.Rajeswari learned standing counsel of APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was very much on duty on 13-1-2009 at about 03.00 hours and therefore, suspension order is unwarranted. 5. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the order of suspension came to be preceded on the preliminary enquiry report and therefore, the accusation levelled against the petitioner cannot be said to be unfounded. 6. The suspension order reads that it is preceded by an enquiry report dated 28-1-2009. Such is the situation, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are unfounded. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension pending enquiry. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner to make an appeal to the competent authority for revocation of his suspension pending enquiry. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 11th February, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2447 OF 2009 11th February, 2009 11th February, 2009.