APHC010547502013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10510/2013 Between: 1. CH.V.S.N.KUMAR S/O LATE M.SATISH, OCC:TYRE MECHANIC, R/O MEERJAPURAM, NUZVID MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BUS BHAVAN, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, NUZVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of 2nd Respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings No.PA/399(01)/2012 NZD dated 28.03.2013 as illegal, malafide arbitrary discriminatory and without jurisdiction and contrary to regulations 18 of the APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations 1967 and consequently set aside impugned proceedings No.PA/399(01)/2012 dated 28.03.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent here in and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 13043 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 2 suspend the proceedings no.PA/399(01)/2012 NZD dated 28.03.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SATYANARAYAN MURTHY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated 28.03.2013. The suspension order was issued pending enquiry. 2. The respondents have filed a counter stating that the suspension was issued on account of insubordination on the part of the petitioner and that the same required further enquiry; as such, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry. It is submitted that the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. 3. Considering the submissions that the writ petition is filed challenging the suspension order pending enquiry and that no interim orders were passed, the enquiry initiated against the petitioner has resulted in passing of subsequent orders by the disciplinary authority, which can be challenged by the petitioner. 4. On these considerations, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 05.02.2026 PNS