K Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K VENKATESWARLU, S/O. K. CHENNAPPA, AGE 51 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT MECHANIC, E. 411958, YAMMIGANUR DEPOT, APSRTC, RIO. H.NO.2-63 B.C. COLONY, GONEGANDLA, KURNOOL DISTRICT. - 518463

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT R AND B DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238

¶15

THE DEPOT MANAGER, YEMMIGANUR, APSRTC, YEMMIGANUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. -518360

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

::2::

¶18

This Court made the following ORDER:

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶20

India by the Petitioners for the following relief:

¶21

“to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the Proceedings of the 2^nd Respondent by suspending the petitioner and issued charge sheet vide Proceedings No. 01/802(01)/2025-YMG dated 13.10.2025, which is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the contrary to Rule (8) of APCS (CC AND A) Rules, 1991 .and Rule 26-A of AP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 to set aside the same and issue consequential directions to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. including arrears of salary, etc. and pass….”

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶23

The present writ petition is filed questioning the order of suspension

¶24

and charge memo vide proceedings No.01/802(01)/2025-YMG dated 13.10.2025 invoking the power vested under Rule 8 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and Rule 26-A of AP Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, respectively, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶25

The petitioner is working as an Assistant Mechanic in the respondents department since 26 years at Yeemiganur Bus Depot. While so, the impugned proceedings of suspension and charge memo has been

¶26

::3::

¶27

issued on the ground that the petitioner had committed theft of 20 litres of HSD (High Speed Diesel) oil from the DGT (Depot Garage Transport) and had violated the instructions of the higher authorities by proceeding towards ZWS, Kadapa, on 09.10.2025 instead of on 08.10.2025.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has unblemished career of 26 years and the impugned proceedings was issued based on a report of the Security Inspector, Kadapa Zone-IV and another one is RTC Constable of DPTOSS office, Ananthapur District, on 10.10.2025. However, the said report was not furnished to the petitioner and further submitted that the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation to the 2^nd respondent explaining the offences about the allegations on 21.10.2025.

¶29

Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the representation of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate decision will be taken in that regard.

¶30

The purpose of suspending an individual is to ensure that the individual does not interfere with the preliminary enquiry. In this case, the preliminary enquiry was said to have been completed by the Security Inspector, Kadapa District, and a report dated 11.10.2025 was submitted. In furtherance of the report dated 11.10.2025, the petitioner was also

¶31

::4::

¶32

issued a charge memo and the question of petitioner in interfering with the preliminary enquiry would not arise.

¶33

Considering the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders with regard to the requirement of continuance of the petitioner under suspension taking note of his long unblemished career of 26 years and the fact that preliminary enquiry was concluded. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34