IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18453 OF 2011 Between: V. Govardhan ..... Petitioner AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ranigunj-II Depot, Secunderabad, A.P. ..... Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18453 OF 2011 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare that the issuing of charge sheet No.01/114(4)/211 RNG.II, dated 16.06.2011, along with suspension order with same date and number making false allegations against the petitioner with a mala fide intention showing wrong date of incident i.e., 04.06.2011, whereas no such complaint was filed by the Deputy Superintendent, Ranigunj-II Depot on 04.06.2011 making such allegations and also not stated in her complaint, dated 31.05.2011, that she was misbehaved and insulted by the petitioner and the petitioner used insulting words against her mentioned in the charges framed in the charge sheet, as illegal, baseless, unfair and unjust by granting all consequential benefits setting aside the suspension order directing the respondent to take the petitioner into service. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner was appointed in APSRTC as Cleaner in February, 1987, and thereafter, he was promoted as Tyre Mechanic considering his service seniority, efficiency and hard work. The petitioner is the APSRTC National Mazdoor Union (for short, “NMU”) Leader and CCS delegate since 1996. He was Garage Secretary of NMU during the period from 2001 to 2007 and now he is CCS delegate and leader of NMU. Garage workers and staff used to come to him and submit their problems and grievances, and the petitioner, being the NMU leader and CCS delegate, used to represent their cases before the Garage Mechanical Supervisors in polite manner and with great respect to solve the problems amicably without creating any problem to the garage workers and mechanical supervisors. Further, the petitioner used to submit the garage problems before the respondent about the harassment of the Mechanical Supervisors on the Garage workers while taking their services. If the Depot Manager, Ranigunj-II Depot failed to solve the problems, then the petitioner used to place the problems before the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineers through Division and State Union Leaders. On 31.05.2011, one Mechanic Satyendra of Ranigunj-II Depot reported to the petitioner that the Deputy Superintendent (M), Ranigunj-II Depot, who is a lady was harassing him while taking work with him due to lack of practical knowledge in maintenance of failure vehicles and she ever calls him using rough language as “Are Itura” etc. After hearing that, the petitioner approached the Deputy Superintendent (M), Ranigunj-II Depot and requested her not to behave in rude manner with the workers and told her to settle it down amicably by not making it as an issue. The petitioner neither misbehaved nor used any filthy language, nor abused her and also not interfered with her duties unnecessarily. The Deputy Superintendent (M), Ranigunj-II Depot also not stated in her complaint, dated 31.05.2011, addressed to the respondent about the same. The respondent issued charge sheet along with suspension order No.01/114(4)/201-RNG.III, dated 16.06.2011, by framing false charges showing wrong dates of incident i.e., 04.06.2011, in the charges and made false allegation in the charges against the petitioner which were not stated by the Deputy Superintendent (M), Ranigunj-II Depot in the complaint, dated 31.05.2011, and that the respondent issued charge sheet and suspension order with a mala fide intention without applying his mind taking personal grudge adding the following words in the charges which neither stated in the complaint nor used by the petitioner. “Naa Service Antha Age Leduneeku ami telusumani Matladu Tunnavu andari mechaniclini pilichi ni meedaku Pampistanu Nuvvemi chestavo nuvvu nannu ami cheyalevu.” The dates of incident mentioned in the 1st and 2nd charges of the charge sheet are false and baseless. No such incident happened on 04.06.2011 in the Garage and no complaint was given by the Deputy Superintendent (M), Ranigunj-II Depot, on 04-06-2011, to the respondent stating such words in her complaint which was alleged by the respondent in the charge sheet. His suspension cannot be ordered in a routine manner simply because the rules enable it and that the authorities have to consider the public interest and also the relevant facts and circumstances. His suspension was ordered on the false ground to damage his image and reputation among the workers of Garage, without applying the mind with bias and mala fide intention. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The Deputy Superintendent lodged a complaint against the petitioner to the respondent alleging as follows: “The tyre mechanic, V. Goverdhan, E111793 is unnecessarily involving in every matter belonging to me. He was talking in rough and rude manner in front of all workers. If he talks like this, in the future, I can’t do the work in this depot and nobody will give respect to me. And also, he always talked in the irrespective manner in scolding way in front of all. So, this is for your information to take necessary action on him please.” 4. Basing on such complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The reason for placing the petitioner under suspension stated in the impugned proceedings, dated 16.06.2011, is: “Allegation: It is alleged and reported by Dy.Supdt (M)/RNG-II depot vide ref.(1) cited and preliminary enquiry report vide depot unnecessary involved in the work of Dy.Supdt (M)/RNG.II of the garage and also threatened her with dire conseqau3nces and also misbehaved with her and insulted her stating that Naa Service Antha age ledu niku ami telusumani matladutunnavu andari mechaniclini pilichi ni medaku pampisthanu nuvvu amichestavo nuvvu nannu ami cheyalevu.” As seen from the above, the allegation in the impugned proceedings, dated 16.06.2011, and the nature of allegation in the complaint lodged by one Sujatha are entirely variant. They contradict with each other. Except stating that he was talking in rough and rude manner in front of all other workers, nothing has been stated in the complaint lodged by her. 5. No doubt, the respondent is at liberty to place an employee under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry when there is a serious misconduct alleged on the part of the employee. Similarly, there must be serious insubordination on the part of the petitioner so that the disciplinary authority can place him under suspension. Such a serious misconduct has not been stated specifically when the Deputy Superintendent (M), Ranigunj-II Depot lodged a report to the disciplinary authority on 31.05.2011. After lapse for nearly one-and-half months, the impugned order is passed placing the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 16.06.2011, is liable to be set aside. 6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, the respondent can proceed with the enquiry after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and complete the same within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 4th July, 2011. KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18453 OF 2011 4th July, 2011 KL