IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 802 of 2009 Between: L.V.R. Murthy S/o. Appa Rao Pathrudu R/o. Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC. Rep. by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The APSRTC. Rep. by its Regional Manager Visakhapatnam Region at Visakhapatnam. 3 The APSRTC. Rep. by its Depot Manager Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam Dist. .....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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in suspending the petitioner from service on the allegation of loss of property, vide Proc. No. 01/610(01)/09 - Narsipatnam, dt. 9-01-2009, as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and as such the charge sheet and Suspension order is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 802 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by L.V.R. Murthy, assailing the action of 3rd Respondent in keeping him under suspension pending enquiry. 2. The petitioner was appointed as cleaner in the year 1998. Subsequently, he got promoted as mechanic. On 1-1-1999 he came to the garage for greeting his colleague employees and he came out of the garage after ten minutes. A complaint came to be presented against him that he carried aluminum sheet measuring 2x1” while coming out from the garage. Basing on the said allegation, 3rd respondent issued proceeding keeping him under suspension. A charge memo was also issued. The petitioner stated to have submitted written statement to the charge Memo. Questioning the suspension order, the petitioner filed the writ petition invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for Respondents No 1 to 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not on duty on 1–1-2009 and therefore the question of his carrying any property of 3rd Respondent –APSRTC does not arise. He further submits that the worth of the property which the petitioner allegedly carried is only Rs.20/- and in which case the suspension of the petitioner is not warranted. 6. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that worth of the property is immaterial and it is the conduct of the petitioner, which is to be taken into consideration. 7. A fact remains that a Charge Memo has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted written statement. 8. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event of Departmental Proceedings are not concluded despite the petitioner extending his cooperation, the order where under the petitioner is kept suspension shall stand revoked. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 23rd January, 2009 Note: C.C. in two days B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 802 OF 2009 23rd January, 2009