Judgment :- 1. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner is a driver in the respondent Transport Corporation. He was doing his second shift duty on 23.3.1993 which was between 2.00 pm and 10.00 pm The petitioner took charge of the bus bearing registration No. TN45/N/0456 and was taking the same from the depot at Rockfort and was proceeding to Chatiram bus stand to park the same at the place earmarked for buses going to Moovanur. At about 4.25 pm on 26.3.1993 as the petitioner was entering into the Chatiram Bus Stand to park the vehicle, due to congestion of traffic by the parking of other vehicles, he was moving slowly. The petitioner heard the siren of a vehicle and the continuous hooting of the horn from behind. He came to understand that a V.I.P. vehicle was coming from behind and he attempted to stop the vehicle on the left hand side and give way to the convoy of vehicles coming behind. He proceeded a little further and went towards the left side of the road and parked the vehicle. The pilot vehicle and the vehicle carrying the V.I.Ps. overtook the bus and stopped. A person from the pilot vehicle came down and summoned the petitioner to the V.I.P car. According to the petitioner, he got down from the bus and went to the V.I.P. car where he found two Honourable Ministers seated in the car. The petitioner states that he apologised for the inconvenience and gave reasons for the short delay in parking the vehicle on the left hand side. According to the petitioner, the Honourable Ministers warned him of suspension and as a result, the petitioner was suspended from service on 27.3.1993. The order of suspension is challenged in this writ petition on the following grounds: (1) The impugned order was passed only at the instance of the Honourable Ministers. (2) There were no materials for the respondent to come to a conclusion that the petitioner is liable to be placed under suspension under Rule 24(2)(a) of the Employees Standing Orders. (3) The impugned order has been passed due to non-application of mind and as the result of arbitrary exercise of power. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 2.4.1993 and interim stay of order was granted on the same day. (3) The impugned order has been passed due to non-application of mind and as the result of arbitrary exercise of power. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 2.4.1993 and interim stay of order was granted on the same day. The respondent has filed a petition to vacate the stay and it is at this stage that the parties agreed that the writ petition can be disposed of. In the counter affidavit of the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was driving the vehicle slowly without giving way to the V.I.P. cars. It is admitted that the Sub Inspector of Police who was in the pilot vehicle rushed to the driver and told him that the Honourable Ministers had summoned him. According to the respondent, the petitioner ignored the request and failed to get down from the bus. On the basis of the statements given by the Sub Inspector of Police as well as one Ilavarasan, a technical staff of the respondent working in Chatiram Bus Depot, the impugned order of suspension has been passed. The respondent has also framed charges and the same has been sent on 3.4.1993 and they have also appointed an Enquiry Officer. According to the respondent, he had enough materials to invoke Standing Order No. 24(2)(n) and there was sufficient material to show that prima facie that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Section 20(41) of the Standing Orders. 4. On the above pleadings, the only question to be decided is whether the order of suspension is warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case. I may, premise my order by stating that suspension pending enquiry into charges will not normally be interfered by this Court unless the authority had no competence or the entire action is tainted by mala fides or the order of suspension is based on no materials, or materials on which no reasonable person can place an employee under suspension. On the actual misconduct alleged against the petitioner, I must say that a driver of a public vehicle or even a private vehicle is certainly under an obligation to give way to vehicles carrying important passengers or carrying injured passengers. On the actual misconduct alleged against the petitioner, I must say that a driver of a public vehicle or even a private vehicle is certainly under an obligation to give way to vehicles carrying important passengers or carrying injured passengers. This is clear from the subsequent circular issued by the very respondent on 5.4.1993 wherein it is stated that the drivers of the respondent Corporation should stop their vehicles on the left hand side whenever they see ambulance vehicles or vehicles carrying important passengers. I am also of the opinion that the vehicles carrying police personnel are also entitled to some preference in the matter of reaching their destinations. No exception can be taken to this principle. But the question is whether such drivers of public vehicles or private vehicles should stop the vehicle immediately or within a reasonable time. I am referring to this aspect of the case because when the vehicle is on the road, normally driver is not expected to give way to the vehicles coming from behind unless the traffic in front of his vehicle is clear and the overtaking vehicles will not involve themselves into any accident. On the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioners vehicle was approaching Chatiram Bus Stand and there were many vehicles of the respondent Corporation and other auto-rickshaws all around the place. Therefore, the petitioner says that he was going slowly and as soon as he heard the siren, he stopped the vehicle on the lefthand side the moment he got sufficient space to park the vehicle. These are all matters which have to be ultimately gone into in the enquiry proposed by the respondent. I do not wish to render any finding one way or the other. On the other hand, if the petitioner had any mala fide intention of purposely slowing down the vehicle carrying V.I.Ps. either out of his own false ideas or due to any other reason, then certainly the respondent will be entitled to take action. For the purpose of showing that the respondent has materials to suspend the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent places before me, three statements dated 26.3.1993. The first two statements are from persons belonging to the respondent Corporation who were stationed at Chatiram Bus Depot. The third is from the Sub Inspector of Police who was in the pilot vehicle. For the purpose of showing that the respondent has materials to suspend the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent places before me, three statements dated 26.3.1993. The first two statements are from persons belonging to the respondent Corporation who were stationed at Chatiram Bus Depot. The third is from the Sub Inspector of Police who was in the pilot vehicle. I have carefully perused these statements and I find that it is stated that the petitioner was not giving way to the vehicles coming from behind and was slowly driving the vehicle and he stopped the vehicle after some time. The Sub Inspector of police, no doubt says that the petitioner refused to come down from the bus to meet the Honourable Ministers. The crucial question is whether the petitioner had taken an unduly long time to park the vehicle on the left hand side. There is absolutely no evidence on this aspect of the case. So far as the allegation that the petitioner refused to get down from the vehicle, the statements of the petitioner and the Sub Inspector of Police are contradicting each other. The truth has to be established only in the enquiry. 5. The second aspect of the case which I would like to touch upon is that charges were framed subsequently and it is said that the act of the petitioner is in violation of Standing Order 23(41). I would do well to extract that Standing Order. “Any other acts and omissions that may be reasonably considered by the management as a misconduct” I am still unable to reconcile myself to the situation that the delay, if any, on the part of the petitioner in stopping the vehicle on the left hand side would amount to such a serious misconduct as warranting an order of suspension from service. Standing Order 24(2)(a) is as follows:— “Where disciplinary proceedings against a workman is contemplated or is pending or where criminal proceedings against him in respect of any offence are in progress and the management is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension, any authorised officer may, by order in writing suspend him with effect from such date as may be specified in the order. A statement setting out in detail the reason for such suspension shall be supplied to the workman within a week from the date of suspension” Normally, a person is placed under suspension only when his continuance in service will be an obstacle in the holding of an eventual enquiry. It is said that the suspension is resorted only to see that the concerned employee is kept out of the sphere of activity. The power can be exercised only when the authorities find that it is necessary or desirable to place a person under suspension. Prima facie it appears to me that the respondent has been carried away by the fact that the Honourable Ministers were inconvenienced and therefore, the petitioner should be placed under suspension. While I do agree with the respondent that a proper enquiry should be held be to find out whether the petitioner was purposely slowing down the vehicle carrying V.I.Ps., I do not think that there is any need to suspend the driver till the enquiry is over. For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the order of suspension cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. It is well open to the respondent to proceed with the enquiry and act in accordance with law.