IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 20593 of 2008 Between: M.V.Kumar S/o.Surya Prakasa Rao R/o.Srikakulam, Srikakulam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., rep.by its Regional Manager, NEC Region at Vizianagaram 2 The APSRTC., rep.by its Personel Officer, O/o.Regional Manager,Vizianagaram 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC,Srikakulam -1 Depot Srikakulam District .....RESPONDENTS 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in transferring the petitioner to a far of place as a measure of punishment on the allegation of involvement in Assault case with another Driver vide Proc.No.P1/789(1)/08-RM/NECR dated 28.8.2008 as illegal, unjust arbitrary, and the order in so far went against to the petitioner in transferring him as a pmeasure of punishment is contrary to law and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to continue the petitioner at Srikakulam-I Depot and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.C.APPAIAH SARMA The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 20593 OF 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled being aggrieved by an order dated 28.8.2008 passed by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Vizianagaram Region, whereunder the petitioner was transferred to Tekkali depot from Srikakulam-I depot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Personal Oﬃcer, APSRTC, Vizianagaram has no business to pass such an order of transfer pending disciplinary proceedings against him while revoking the suspension order passed earlier and it is the Depot Manager alone who is authorized to pass such an order. According to the learned counsel, such an order of transfer, which is punitive in nature, is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for respondents Sri Appayya Sharma, vehemently contended that the impugned order of transfer was passed only to enable the respondents to conduct fair enquiry into the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner while revoking his suspension and, therefore, such an order cannot be said to be punitive in nature, particularly in a case of this nature where the petitioner manhandled another colleague in the same depot. I am in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the respondents and I feel that no ground is made out in this writ petition calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the impugned order dated 28.8.2008. The writ petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from making appropriate representation, after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, for posting him at Srikakulam Depot, if the same is permissible as per law. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 19-09-2008. MVB.