1. Petitioner is a driver in Razole Depot of respondent-Corporation. In this Writ Petition petitioner is assailing the order of suspension dated 05.10.2015.

2. The facts giving rise to institution of this writ petition are as under. On 27.08.2015, petitioner was given duty of Razole – Sakinetapally route on Bus No.AP 28Z 2630. The total journey required to be covered was 402 KMs. After carrying the Bus for three trips of 360 KMs, in the last trip bus came to Razole Bus Stand at 1930 hours and has to start the bus within 10 minutes for the next trip. When petitioner attempted to start the Bus, the bus did not start due to engine failure. Accordingly, petitioner informed the Garage Superintendent, who sent the Mechanic to look into the mechanical problem of the bus. As the bus required repairs, it was carted into Garage at 2010 hours. Another bus was provided and petitioner completed the scheduled service by undertaking Palakolu trip. Alleging that petitioner indulged in mixing water in HSD oil in the service vehicle, he was placed under suspension by the order impugned in the writ petition.

3. Heard Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner was not responsible for mixing of water in the HSD oil. Initial assessment of the mechanic for not starting the bus was that there was air-lock. After taking the bus to the garage, rain water could have sneaked into HSD tank. He submits that there was no need for the petitioner to mix the water in the oil tank. The fact that initially mechanic stated that there was airlock lends credence to his contention. He further submits that petitioner was required to complete 402 KMs of traveling and he has accordingly completed. On account of failure of the Bus, the total time lost was approximately one hour and journey was completed without causing any inconvenience to the passengers. He, therefore, submits that false allegations are leveled against the petitioner. Suspension is unwarranted and made only to harass the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel further submits that there is no justification to place the petitioner under suspension on trivial charge. Furthermore, when there is no possibility of tampering of evidence or influencing the witness, suspension need not be resorted to. In the instant case, everything is on record. Petitioner is only a bus driver, he cannot have access to the record. His continuation in service cannot be said as detrimental to the respondent corporation. On the contrary, continuation of suspension would only deprive the experienced driver attending to the bus service.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1316 of 2014 dated 27.10.2014; and in the Deputy General of Police, Kurnool Range and four others vs. R.S.Madhubabu (W.A.No.186 of 2009).

7. The report of the Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) of Razole Depot submitted on 29.08.2015 seems to suggest that there was contamination of HSD oil with water in the vehicle resulting in failure of the vehicle. The disciplinary authority considered the said report and found that initial statement given by the petitioner to the night trip supervisor that there was air-lock of the vehicle and, therefore, vehicle did not start was not correct. The disciplinary authority noticed that as per the record, two liters of water was found in the oil tank. Alleging that petitioner was responsible for mixing of water in HSD oil with an intention to increase the KMPL out put or to cancel the kilometers on the ground of bus failure, amounts to fraudulent nature of the person and that he intended to tarnish the image of the Corporation. On the same day, disciplinary authority framed the charge. The charge sheet enlists the allegations and calls for the explanation of the petitioner.

8. Based on the law laid down in long line of prec