THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26541 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Driver in the Zaheerabad Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 04-06-2011, alleging that he was involved in a criminal case, being crime No.296 of 2011, registered on the complaint submitted by his wife; that he did not bring to the notice of the Depot Manager, the 2nd respondent, the fact that he was arrested by Police Station, Jeedimetla, and that he absented for duties from 28-03-2011 to 13-04- 2011. On the same day, the 2nd respondent, passed an order, placing the petitioner under suspension. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The arrest of the petitioner in connection with a complaint submitted by his wife, gave rise to framing of three charges and suspension, pending enquiry. The allegation on the basis of which, the petitioner was arrested, is not referable to the discharge of duties by the petitioner. It is in relation to the dispute between himself and his wife. It is true that the petitioner was arrested by the Police, and the same gave rise to his suspension, pending enquiry, as required under the Regulations. Though it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent has acted in any way contrary to law in placing the petitioner under suspension, it needs to be seen as to whether the continued suspension is in the interest of the Corporation, at all. Had it been a case where the petitioner was prima facie found to be guilty of any acts of misconduct, referable to his discharge of duties, and that the enquiry is contemplated, things would have been different. The differences, that existed between himself and his wife, cannot be permitted to deprive the petitioner of his livelihood. Further, the allegation in the complaint is prima facie not the one, which relates to any acts of moral turpitude. Not only the Corporation does not stand to any benefit, but on the other hand, it would be required to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner, without extracting any work from him. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. It shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry, if any, instituted against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22-09-2011. KO