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. (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, initiation of Criminal Prosecution and Departmental Enquiry do not attract the doctrine of Double Jeopardy even though they are based on the same transaction. (g) It is expedient and prudent to deal with an employee involved in a criminal offence bearing his suitability to continue in employment, before commencement of criminal prosecution and moreover, completion of disciplinary action before the commencement of criminal prosecution results in a dispensation to a employee while facing the criminal prosecution. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. PERUSED THE RECORD 5. The order impugned dated 28.02.2009 of the 2nd respondent vide No. P1/114(3)/2009-GDL, reads as under: “STATEMENT OF ALLEGATION: It is reported and complained by the SI of Police, Kollapur, on 26.02.2009 vide reference cited, that you have involved in Crime No. 75/08, Under Section 306 I.P.C. dated 15.12.08 and arrested on 27.01.2009 by the Police and sent to Judicial Remand, Mahabubnagar, for which kind of your involvement you have committed misconduct and defamed the image of the Corporation. Based on the above allegation you are placed under suspension pending enquiry into the charge framed against you. You need not attend the depot during the period of suspension is case your presence is required, you will be intimated through a separate letter. You must furnish your present address to the AM(T), Gadwal depot for communication if any. You will be paid the subsistence allowance as admissible from time to time and as per the rules and regulations. Please acknowledge the receipt.” 6. The interim order dated 12.03.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No. 6442 of 2009 in W.P.No. 4915 of 2009, reads as under: “Smt B.G.Uma Devi, learned standing counsel of APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time. There shall be interim stay of the Departmental Proceedings consequent on the issuance of charge sheet vide Proceedings No. P1/114(3)/09-GDL, dated 28.02.2009.” 7. The interim order dated 05.08.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No. 19779 of 2009 in W.P.No. 4915 of 2009, reads as under: “No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent/Corporation so far. Learned Standing counsel seeks further time for the said purpose. Post after four weeks. In the meanwhile, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 20.03.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 8. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in particular, paras 6, 7, and 9 read as under: “6. It is submitted that unless and until proceeded with the enquiry under the regulations are conducted, the respondent would not be able to come to conclusion whether the case of the petitioner falls under the Circular No. LC- 5/82-83 dt: 14.02.1983. Whether the suspension orders should be lifted. It is submitted that unless and until proceeded with the enquiry under the regulations are conducted, the respondent would not be able to come to conclusion whether the case of the petitioner falls under the Circular No. LC- 5/82-83 dt: 14.02.1983. Whether the suspension orders should be lifted. It is further submitted even the consideration of the representation made by the petitioner is not permissible to be gone into due to orders of this Hon'ble Court in WPMP No. 6442 of 2009. 7. It is submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was accused in Cr. No. 75/2008 regd. On PS Kollapur. He was arrested and sent to judicial remand. As per the CC&A Regulations 1967 Reg. 18(2) clearly envisages that "An employee who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, by an order of the appointing authority, and shall remain under suspension until further orders." It is submitted that to proceed to the stage of Reg. 18(6) it would amount to violation of orders of this Hon'ble court. 9. It is further submitted it is both expedient and prudent to deal with an employee involved in a criminal offence having a bearing on his suitability to continue in employment on the departmental plane, before commencement of criminal prosecution. The completion of disciplinary action before the commencement of criminal prosecution results in a dispensation under which the person involved to be a corporate employee while facing the criminal prosecution. In view of the above the writ petition may be dismissed directing the respondents to proceed in accordance with the Regulations as per law. The interim order dated 12.03.2009 in W.P.M.P.No. 6442 of 2009 in W.P.No. 4915 of 2009 are in force. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioner from service vide order dated 28.02.2009 vide proceedings No. P1/114(3)/09-GDL on the allegation that the petitioner was involved in Crime No. 75 of 2008 under Section 306 IPC and the police Kollapur had arrested the petitioner on 27.01.2009 and on the same day a charge sheet had been issued alleging two specific charges against the petitioner for involvement in Crime No. 75 of 2008 under Section 306 IPC, dated 15.12.2008. On being arrested the petitioner on 27.01.2009, the petitioner was sent to judicial remand due to which the image of the corporation has defamed, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xv) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct)Reg. 1963. 10. It is further specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct during the course of petitioner’s employment and the petitioner had been falsely implicated in the said criminal case and further the so called alleged crime was not in the course of employment. The petitioner places reliance on Circular No. LC5/82-83, dated 14.02.1983 refers in particular to the course of action to be adopted in a case where the employee is charged with a criminal offence, which is not connected with the duties of his employment, the circular reads as follows: “An employee may have been charged with a criminal offence of assault, rioting etc. in a public place or in his village etc, outside his duty hours, this is certainly an incident which has no nexus to his duties as such. In such circumstances, it is needless to state that the employee need not be placed under suspension, as the placement of an employee under suspension is considered appropriate only when his continuance in service might be detrimental to the interests of the Corporation.” The circular further reads as follows: “Even if such an employee is suspended, because of his arrest by police, the same can be lifted when the employee is released on bail. As regards parallel departmental action a disciplinary action may be taken after the criminal case is decided by the Court and basing on the nature and quantum of punishment imposed.” 11. The petitioner in fact filed his detailed representation on 20.03.2009 addressed to the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gadwal referred to the order dated 05.08.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No. 19779 of 2009 in W.P.No. 4915 of 2009 and requested for revocation of the order of suspension in view of the circular No. LC-5/82-83, dated 13.02.1983 and to reinstate the petitioner in to service. The petitioner also referred the interim order obtained on 12.03.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No. 6442 of 2009 granting stay of the departmental proceedings consequent on the issuance of the charge sheet vide proceedings No. P.1/114(3)/09-GDL, dated 28.02.2009. 12. The petitioner also referred the interim order obtained on 12.03.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No. 6442 of 2009 granting stay of the departmental proceedings consequent on the issuance of the charge sheet vide proceedings No. P.1/114(3)/09-GDL, dated 28.02.2009. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brings on record the order dated 06.01.2010 passed in S.C.No. 348 of 2009 registered against the petitioner under Section 498-A and 306 IPC and the relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool, reads as under: “13. There is no evidence placed before the Court that the accused has directly or indirectly instigated the deceased to commit suicide to attract the provision under Section 306 IPC. Since all the material witnesses turned hostile and failed to support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 498-A and 306 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. and set him at liberty. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.” Contends that the writ petition needs to be allowed and the petitioner reinstated into service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. 13. The relevant portion of order dated 17.10.2014 passed in W.P.No. 31119 of 2014 between B. Iddaiah vs. APSRTC and Another, 2015 (2) ALD 154 , in particular, paras 10, 11 and 12 reads as under: “10. In the instant case even if the entire facts based on which the FIR was registered are considered to be true, the offence alleged is not grave and it does not involve any moral turpitude. It has no nexus with the official functions of the petitioner. Moreso, it does not attract any of the misconducts enumerated in the regulations of the Corporation and apparently the suspension order is contrary to the Circular issued by the Corporation which is extracted hereinabove. 11. Having regard to the peculiar nature of the facts of the case, the Corporation ought not to have placed the petitioner under suspension. Even for any reason the Corporation suspended him, the suspension order ought to have been lifted after release of the petitioner on bail. In the circumstances, I thoroughly consider that the suspension order being unsustainable, is liable to be set aside. 12. Even for any reason the Corporation suspended him, the suspension order ought to have been lifted after release of the petitioner on bail. In the circumstances, I thoroughly consider that the suspension order being unsustainable, is liable to be set aside. 12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of setting aside the suspension order. However, the Corporation is at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, after the judgment is rendered by the criminal Court convicting the petitioner and if such conviction warrants initiation of disciplinary proceedings. No order as to costs.” 14. This Court opines that the criminal case registered against the petitioner has no nexus with the official functions of the petitioner. Moreso, it does not attract any of the misconduct enumerated in the regulations of the Corporation and apparently the suspension order is contrary to the Circular No. LC5/82-83, dated 14.02.1983 issued by the Corporation (referred to and extracted above). This Court opines that having regard to the peculiar nature of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Corporation ought not to have placed the petitioner under suspension and further the respondents ought to have considered the petitioner’s representation dated 19.03.2009 for revocation of orders of suspension taking into consideration the circular guidelines issued vide circular dated 14.02.1983 which in fact even stipulates that even if such an employee is suspended, because of his arrest by police, the same can be lifted when the employee is released on bail. But however, the same has not been done in the present case, this Court opines that the suspension order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 15. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances of the case and also the guidelines in Circular No. LC5/82-83, dated 14.02.1983 and the view taken by this Court in the judgment reported in 2015 (2) ALD 154 dated 17.10.2014 passed in W.P.No. 31119 of 2014 under identical circumstances in B. Iddaiah vs. APSRTC and Another, (referred to and extracted above), the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings No. P1/114(3)/09-GDL, dated 28.02.2009 suspending the petitioner from the service and charge sheeting the petitioner is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.