Heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.Venugopal, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C (for short “the Corporation”). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was so much of pressure mounted by the passengers, as a result of which, the petitioner was forced to conduct the service far ahead of the time of the scheduled departure, and he cannot be subjected to any disciplinary control on that account. However, Sri H.Venugopal would contend that there is a serious allegation leveled against the petitioner by the Assistant Manager (Traffic) that the petitioner has altered the numbers of the tickets from 062-042 and hence it is the case of indulgence in cash and ticket irregularities. It is also stated at the Bar that the disciplinary enquiry has already been initiated and it is progressing. It is always appropriate to have the factual disputes resolved at the first instance by the fact-finding authority, so that if a judicial review is called for later on, the same can be exercised. Therefore, I consider that the ends of justice would be met adequately if I direct the respondents to ensure that the domestic enquiry initiated against the petitioner is completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the respondents would also seriously consider the feasibility of reinstating the petitioner as soon as the disciplinary enquiry is over, so that there could not be any action of the petitioner to tamper with the evidence and/or seek to influence the witnesses who have spoken against him.
