THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22229 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Driver in Chittoor-II Bus Depot. He was placed under suspension through order, dated 23.08.2010, by the respondent on the allegation that he misbehaved in the Office of the Assistant Manager (P). The petitioner challenges the same. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Normally, this Court would not interfere with the order of suspension. The allegation made or charge levelled against the employee has to be enquired into in the domestic enquiry. Where, however, the charge is trivial and there does not exist any possibility for the employee to tamper with the record or evidence, the suspension would not at all be the interest of the organisation. The only allegation against the petitioner is that on 29.07.2010, he entered the Office of the Assistant Manager and disturbed him at a time when a dictation was being given to the Clerk. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have come once again in an intoxicated condition and uttered that what for the Assistant Manager is there and he can do business in T.Vs. On this allegation, the petitioner is placed under suspension. This is not the stage at which the correctness or otherwise of the allegation made against the petitioner, needs to be examined in detail. However, it is evident that there is no allegation that the petitioner entered the Office of the Assistant Manager initially in an intoxicated condition. It is only at a later point of time the petitioner is found to have been in that condition. Further, the utterance attributed to the petitioner is not abusive or derogatory. It is not at all in the interest of the Corporation to suspend a Driver on the basis of such allegation. If the respondent intends to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, it can certainly do so. However, continuing the petitioner under suspension would result in not only dislocation of work but also in payment of wages, without extracting the work. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is left open to the respondent to take further steps in accordance with law and impose any conditions against the petitioner to ensure that the enquiry proceeds uninterruptedly. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:07.09.2010. kdl