ORDER :

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, quash common impugned proceedings No. P1/114(3)/09-GDL, dated 28.02.2009 in suspending the petitioner from service, charge sheeting him and as well as proceeding with the enquiry into charges as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, as well as in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all the benefits.

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The Petitioner had joined the Respondent’s Corporation as conductor on 01.01.1991 and petitioner’s services were regularized from 01.07.1992 and had worked to the best of petitioner’s ability.

(b) Vide Impugned Suspension Order dated 28.02.2009, petitioner had been suspended from service on the ground that the petitioner was involved in crime No. 75 of 2008 under Section 306 of IPC. However, after perusing the charges, it is understood that the proceedings were issued based on the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector, Kollapur (herein after referred to as S.I.) dated 26.02.2009.

(c) Petitioner requested the 2nd respondent, that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case and that the petitioner has nothing to do with the said criminal case and also the fact that the issue in the criminal case is neither connected to petitioner’s employment nor the alleged crime had happened in the course of petitioner’s employment.

(d) The 2nd respondent is not a competent authority to decide on the petitioner’s involvement in the Crime No. 75 of 2008 and the same is subjudice before the Criminal Court, which is in fact the competent court, to go into the allegations levelled against the petitioner in said criminal case and hence, the impugned action of the 2nd respondent is without jurisdiction.

(e) The compliant against the petitioner has been lodged by petitioner’s father-in-law on 21.07.2008 and the complaint has nothing to with the criminal case.

(f) Moreover, inspite of petitioner’s several oral requests, the report of S.I. had not been furnished to the petitioner, which has been the basis for charge sheeting the petitioner and also suspending the petitioner from respondents corporation, thereby depriving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity and hence are liable to be set aside. Hence the Writ Petition.

4. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The petitioner is bereft of the clean record of service, as the petitioner, during his service, was inflicted with the number of punishments, 15 (Fifteen) to be precise, from the year 1991 to 2002.

(b) It was informed that the petitioner was involved in Crime No. 75 of 2008 under section 306 of Indian Penal Code by the S.I. on 15.12.2008 and the petitioner was arrested on 27.01.2009 and was send to Judicial remand, Mahaboobnagar and hence the petitioner, after receiving the information was placed under Suspension from services.

(c) Vide Interim Directions in W.P.M.P No. 6442 of 2009 in W.P. No. 4915 of 2009 dated 12.03.2009, the charge sheet has been stayed and the said order is subsisting and in the obedience of the Court’s order, the charge sheet has not been enquired into and it is not possible to take any decision in accordance to law.

(d) Unless and until, the enquiry is conducted, the respondent would not be able to decide whether the case of the petitioner falls under the Circular No. LC-5/82-83 dated 14.02.1983 and whether the suspension orders should be lifted or not.

(e) The petitioner undeniably is an accused in the Cr.No. 75/2008 in P.S., Kollapur and was arrested and sent to judicial remand and as per CC&A regulation 1967 Reg. 18(2) which clearly indicates that employee detained in the custody for more than 48 hours shall be deemed to be suspended from service until further orders.

(f) Moreover,