IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2004 of 2008 Between: M.Jayanna, s/o Sundaram, E.No.250094, O/o The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Picket, Secunderabad R/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Picket Depot, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 call for the records from the respondents herein by issuing a writ, order or direction more particularlyonein the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the charge shett No.01/197(4)/2007- PKT dt.16-1-2008 and suspension order No.01/197(4)/2007-PKT, dt.16-1-2008 of the respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to law, without application of mind and also in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2004 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a Senior Assistant in the Secunderabad Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He has been posted in a seat, dealing with the provident fund and other matters of the employees in September 2006. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet, dated 16.01.2008, whereunder the charges relating to the alleged failure of the petitioner in sending the cheques representing the amount of PF and EDLIF, in relation to the outsourced employees, were framed. On the same day, through a separate order, the petitioner was placed under suspension, in view of the issuance of charge sheet. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he was not conversant with the nature of duties entrusted to him and that there is not even an allegation of fraud or misappropriation. The respondent filed a counter affidavit, together with an application to vacate the interim order, attempting to justify the order of suspension. Heard Sri P.Sridha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioner was allotted ‘01’ seat, during September 2006. The allegation against the petitioner is in relation to his failure to send the cheques representing the amount of PF and EDLIF, for the outsourced employees, for the period from “February 2006 to May 2007”. In other words, even by the time, the petitioner was posted against that seat, cheques for the months from February to August 2006 were pending. This fact is being referred to in the limited context of examining whether the situation warrants the suspension of the petitioner. At the most, it can be treated as negligence in attending to certain duties. This Court finds it difficult to sustain the order of suspension, even if the allegations leveled against the petitioner are taken on their face value. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner has already submitted explanation and the enquiry is said to be in progress. The same shall be concluded within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 19.03.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2004 of 2008 Date: 19.03.2008 JSU