IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos : 1472, 1879 and 1880 of 2008 W.P.No.1472 of 2008 Between: C.V. Reddy S/o. Late C.P. Subbi Reddy Zonal Workshop, APSRTC, Kadapa, R/o. Kadapa. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vigilance & Security officer, Kadapa Zone, Kadapa. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the 2nd respondent and issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the Suspension Order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.SB/227(2)/2008-ED(K) dt. 25-1-2008 as illegal, unjust contrary to law arbitrary in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 , 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI W.P.No. 1879 of 2008 Between: K. Pullaiah S/o. Guravaiah Office of V & SO, ZWS, APSRTC, Kadapa R/o.Siddavaram Village & Post, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vigilance & Security Officer, Kadapa Zone, Kadapa. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the 2nd respondent and issue an appropriate writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the Suspension Order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.SB/227(2)/2008-ED (K) dt. 25-1-2008 as illegal, unjust contrary to law arbitrary in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent s: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI W.P.No. 1880 of 2008 Between: B.Nagaratnam, s/o Pitchaiah, Office of V&SO ZWS, APSRTC, Kadapa R/o 8/105-2, Prakash Nagar, Kadapa, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20. 2 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Vigilance & Security Officer, Kadapa Zone, Kadapa. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the 2nd respondent and issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the Suspension Order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.SB/227(2)/2008-ED (K) dated 25-1- 2008 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits; and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: In these three writ petitions, individual orders of suspension, dated 25.01.2008, are challenged. The petitioner in W.P.No.1472 of 2008 is ASI in the security establishment in Zonal Workshop of APSRTC at Kadapa. Petitioners in W.P.Nos.1879 and 1880 of 2008 are Security Guard and Head Constable, respectively, in the same establishment. Separate orders of suspension, dated 25.01.2008, were served on the petitioners in relation to an incident that is said to have taken place on 19.01.2008. It was stated that ASI and the Security Guard were on duty in the shift from 8.00 to 16.00 hours and at about 10.45 hours, the Security Guard had gone out side and came back along with the Head Constable and one Mr.C.K.M. Reddy, another Security Guard, in a drunken condition. It was alleged that all the three started accusing each other in filthy language, apart from quarrelling in the premises of the depot. With the intervention of other security personnel, the situation was said to have been brought under control. It was alleged that Nagarathnam, petitioner in W.P.No.1880 of 2008, apart from consuming liquor, after going out from the duty, had brought a quarter bottle of whisky for ASI. Alleging that the petitioners have resorted to acts of misconduct, the respondents placed them under suspension, said to be in public interest. The petitioners contend that the incident alleged by the respondents did not take place, at all, and the lapse, if, at all, on the part of ASI was only to the extent that he permitted Mr.C.K.M. Reddy to join duty from 16.00 hours on that day, after completion of his absence on the ground of sickness. The respondents filed counter-affidavits, denying the allegations of the petitioners. It is stated that not only did the petitioners failed to discharge the duties of securing the zonal workshop, but have also brought disrepute to the organization and indiscipline in the premises. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt.W.V.S.Rajeshwari, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Interference with the orders of suspension, pending enquiry into grave charges, is somewhat rare. It is only when the orders are passed by authorities not vested with the power, or where the allegations even if taken on its face value are trivial in nature, if not obsolete, that the Court would have an occasion to interfere. It is no doubt true that the veracity of the allegations made against the petitioners needs to be examined at the departmental enquiry. However, the charges, prima facie, are very serious in nature. Added to that, all the petitioners are from security establishment, where discipline of very high order is required to be maintained. It is too early for this Court to make any observation as to the truthfulness, or otherwise of the allegations against the petitioners. The circumstances do not warrant interference with the orders of suspension. On the other hand, the interests of the petitioners can be protected by directing that the enquiry initiated against the petitioners to be concluded within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Hence, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, directing that the respondents shall conclude the proceedings initiated against the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The suspension of the petitioners shall continue till such time. Nature of steps would depend upon the out come of the enquiry. It is needless to mention that the interim orders, dated 29.01.2008 and 01.02.2008 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as costs. ____________________ Dt.19.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Note:Furnish C.C. by Monday. (B/o) GJ To Two C.D. copies.