HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.2376 of 2007 Dated 6-8-2010 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC Kothagudem Depot, Kothagudem, Khammam District. …Petitioner. And: Manda Prasad. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.2376 of 2007 ORDER: A.P.S.R.T.C. has questioned the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.835 of 2005 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem dated 20-11-2006 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the said Judgment and Decree of the Court below is totally without jurisdiction. Respondent herein is working as a conductor who was found to have committed cash and ticket irregularities on 15-9- 2005 and based thereon, he was placed under suspension by issuing a Charge Memo and calling his written explanation. The order of suspension passed by the petitioner- Management was challenged in a Civil Suit in O.S.No.835 of 2005 by the respondent and the Court below under impugned Judgment has decreed the suit by suspending the order of suspension passed by the petitioner on 5-10-2005. The question of jurisdiction was raised by the petitioner before the Court below, on the basis of decision of the Supreme Court in COIMBATORE DISTRICT P.T.SANGAM v. BALA SUBRAMANIA CHOWDARY ([1]). The Court below held that under Section 9 C.P.C. it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and accordingly decreed the suit. While admitting the C.R.P. on 21-6-2007, this Court suspended the said impugned order and the learned counsel for the petitioner-Management states that the respondent is working but no further action is taken. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed an affidavit of the respondent dated 4-8-2010 specifically confirming that the respondent is in service and posted at Kothagudem Depot. In that view therefore, the suspension of the petitioner at this distance of time would not be justified. However, the petitioner shall have an opportunity to complete the disciplinary proceedings n accordance with rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a decision of the Supreme Court in CHANDRAKANT TUKARAM NIKAM AND OTHERS v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AHMEDABAD AND ANOTHER ([2]) wherein the Supreme Court considered the very same question and has held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is impliedly barred in disputes of this nature falling within the Industrial Disputes Act as it relates to the disciplinary proceedings. It is also reiterated in another decision in RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. DEEN DAYAL SHARMA ([3]) and in view of that the learned counsel states that the decree is required to be declared as without jurisdiction. The decisions aforesaid clearly cover the matter and in that view the Civil Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit of this nature. The impugned order therefore, is liable to be set aside with a liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate action if any in accordance with the Service Rules subject to its permissibility at this distance of time. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ___________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 6-8-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.2376 of 2007 Dated 6-8-2010 [1] AIR 1987 SC. 2043 [2] (2002) 2 SCC 542 [3] (2010) 6 SCC 697