M.Ch.Saidulu S/O. Chinna Saidulu, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO WP.No.39572 of 2016 O R D E R:

Petitioner had filed this Writ Petition challenging the proceedings dt.19.09.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent suspending the petitioner pending enquiry and on the same day a charge memo dt.19.09.2016 has also been issued to the petitioner.

2.

Though counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is innocent of the charges framed against him and that he had already given an explanation in that regard and seeks quashing of the order placing him under suspension pending enquiry, I am not inclined to grant such a relief, since the petitioner would have ample opportunity to prove his innocence in the disciplinary enquiry which is proposed against the petitioner. 3.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner to the charge memo and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 4.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J 17th November, 2016.

gra