THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22600 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Manager of Vuyyuru Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. Through proceedings dated 25-06-2011, the Executive Director of the Corporation, the 2nd respondent herein, placed him under suspension. The only ground mentioned therein is that a lady Constable, by name, K. Sudha Rani, working in Krishnalanka Police Station, submitted a complaint on 15-06-2011, alleging that the petitioner misbehaved with her. Treating that development as an act of misconduct for initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order. The petitioner contends that he noticed a lady at 10:30 p.m., at the banks of Krishna canal, opposite to the bus station, and taking note of the fact that, that is a place at which, number of women have committed suicide, he has shouted at that lady to come to the bus station, to know as to why she is going alone in a hurried manner at 10:30 p.m. He states that he did so, only with a view to rescue a woman, who appeared to him to be in distress, and that the same was mistaken, and a complaint was submitted. He further states that on realizing her mistake, the said lady has withdrawn her complaint on 30-06-2011. He submits that under these circumstances, there is no necessity for the 2nd respondent to suspend him. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In case the allegation against the petitioner that he misbehaved with a woman, that too at odd hours; is true, not only suspension pending enquiry, but also severe action is warranted. The record, however, prima facie discloses that the so-called incident occurred when the petitioner was very much in the Bus Depot, and on finding that the lady was proceeding in a hurry, by the side of the canal, he called her, with an intention to rescue her. It needs to be noted that the place where the lady was proceeding is known as ‘suicide point’, and that number of suicides have taken place in the past. Further, the conversation that has ensued between the petitioner and the said lady would clearly disclose that, his effort was to ensure that, the lady moves away from the bank of the canal and proceeds to the other side. The complaint itself was made two days after the incident. Even that was withdrawn by the complainant, stating that she has mistaken the efforts of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the suspension of the petitioner is totally unwarranted. If the suspension is continued, the Corporation would be at loss in the sense that, it would have to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner without extracting any work, and would be deprived of the services of a trained official. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 25-06-2011 is set aside. It is, however, directed that, in case any disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, the reinstatement shall be without prejudice to such proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-08-2011. KO