P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Petitioner is a driver in respondent corporation. On 16.12.2016 he was assigned service bus bearing registration NO. AP 10 Z 9964 from Makthal to Marikal via Undecode. The bus was stopped at Beerappagudi, Pattached village and after observing the bus stop, petitioner moved the bus. While so, persons standing nearby shouted to stop the bus, accordingly, petitioner stopped the bus. It appears, an old lady, standing near the bus stop, fell between the front and rear tyres of the bus and rear tyre moved over the body of the old lady and she died instantaneously. The Superintendent (Traffic), made a spot inspection to ascertain the reasons for accident and submitted his report on 17.12.2016. A preliminary enquiry was conducted on 27.12.2016 and the report was submitted to the competent authority. There was a joint enquiry by the Depot Manager-second respondent along with another Depot Manager and report was made on 5.1.2017. There after, on 9.1.2017, the Depot Manager, issued two proceedings, in one proceeding, petitioner was placed under suspension and in second proceeding, charge was framed against the petitioner. Petitioner filed his explanation on 12.1.2017; not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer, was appointed. Challenging the order of suspension and framing charges, this writ petition is filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri V Narasimha Goud and learned standing counsel for respondent corporation Mr. B Mayur Reddy.

3.1 Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the suspension from service is wholly unwarranted; there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner; the old lady was handicapped and was standing by holding a stick, she suffered with fits and in that situation, she fell between the two tyres of the vehicle and there was no occasion for the petitioner to observe the old lady, therefore there was no rash and negligent driving by petitioner.

3.2 He would submit that in the report of the Superintendent - Traffic dated 17.12.2016, the Superintendent clearly states that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. In the further report of the Superintendent dated 27.12.2016, the Superintendent clearly says that Driver had taken all precautions as required and accident occurred only because the old lady, while she was crossing, fell down because she suffered with fits. The report of the Surpanch of the Grampanchayati also clearly stated that there was no negligence by the driver. The complainant, at whose instance, crime was registered, gave an affidavit on 9.1.2017 clearly stating that there was no negligence by the petitioner. Petitioner also relies on a statement given by a passenger viz., Sri M Surender Reddy, stating that petitioner was not responsible for the accident.

3.3 He would further submit that by notice dated 3.1.2017, addressed to the complainant, police informed complainant that on 31.12.2016 report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Atmakur praying the learned Judge to close the case as 'action be abated' and that if he has any objection against such report, he should file his objections. According to learned counsel, no objections were filed by the complainant and on the contrary, his representation dated 9.1.2017 clearly substantiate that it was a false complaint.

3.4. He therefore submitted that on a false allegation he was placed under suspension and disciplinary action is initiated, causing lot of hardship and suffering to him; the petitioner is looked down in the community as if he has committed a serious offence on account of suspension from service; his suspension is causing stigma to him.

3.5 Learned counsel submits that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner amount to colourable exercise of power. He further submitted that explanation of the petitioner ought to have been considered and on account of the voluminous evidence in support of the petitioner, further action