IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 12685 of 2009 Between: G.R.K.Raju S/o.late Somaraju Resident of Billavari Street, Amalapuram - 533 201, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Amalapuram Depot, East Godavari District. .....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 issue a Writ, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order declaring order No.M2/114(4)/09-AMP., dated 12.6.2009 passed by the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and the APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1967, and consequently set aside the same, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a Driver working with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) calling in question the validity of the orders passed by the Depot Manager, Amalapuram, dated 12.06.2009, placing him under suspension, pending enquiry into certain grave acts of irregularities alleged against him, in exercise of the power under Regulation 18(1) of APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1967. The gravamen of the charge against the writ petitioner was that he misused the facility of a rest room where he was found in the company of a female, who is not related to him and stayed with her at one of the rest rooms provided by the APSRTC by hiring the same from Sri R.V.Rangarao. Sri R.V.Rangarao, the owner of the premises, appears to have lodged a complaint bringing out the misconduct of the writ petitioner on 30.05.2009. Based upon the said complaint, the impugned order came to be passed placing the writ petitioner under suspension. It appears that the same owner is stated to have filed another report with the Depot Manager on 01.06.2009 pointing out that it is Sri M.B.V.Kumar, Driver, who is seen in the company of a female on 30.05.2009, but not the writ petitioner, at the rest room. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that without verifying the basic requisite facts, the Depot Manager has proceeded hurriedly in placing the writ petitioner under suspension. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he never misused the facility of rest room available at Jeedimetla area, Hyderabad City. Whenever he is performing his duties on any trip from Amalapuram to Jeedimetla, the writ petitioner asserts that he is using the rest room only for the purpose of taking rest and he has never brought any unauthorized person, much less a woman, to the said room. It is further alleged that from the duty roster available with the Depot Manager, the facts could have been ascertained easily as to whether the writ petitioner is the person who was on duty during the relevant day or not, and even without ascertaining these basic and necessary facts, the Depot Manager has hurriedly proceeded to pass the impugned order, particularly casting a very serious misconduct against the writ petitioner. It was also pointed out that when the owner of the premises himself has realized the mistake committed by him in naming the writ petitioner initially in his complaint, dated 30.05.2009, and rectified the same, through another report submitted by him on 01.06.2009 itself, the Depot Manager has gravely erred in his decision in not taking into account the same, which is available with him at the time when the impugned order has been passed. The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC has filed a detailed counter in the matter. It is pointed out therein that a preliminary enquiry was also conducted now into the entire matter and during the course of such preliminary enquiry, the owner of the premises has changed his version altogether. It is therefore crystal clear that the version of the owner which kept on changing from stage to stage, does not inspire much of a confidence, and appears to be too treacherous to be relied upon. There should have been a greater degree of scrutiny in the matter. Perhaps, the rest room may not have been used during the relevant period, only by one individual. It is quite possible and probable that the rest room facility may have also been used simultaneously by other staff members of the APSRTC. Therefore, greater care ought to have been taken by the Depot Manager while passing the impugned order, by cross checking the facts from other users of the rest room instead of trying to place heavy reliance upon the statement said to have been made by the owner of the premises. If the owner of the premises is found to be changing his version day in and day out, such statements normally become untenable. While it is understandable on the part of the authorities of the APSRTC to anxiously protect its image and ensure that proper discipline is maintained by its employees, at the same time, it cannot also lose sight of the fact that the allegation of the nature which is made against the writ petitioner presently, will have far graver consequences and hence, great degree of care ought to have been taken in the matter. Availability of power to place an employee under suspension is one aspect of the matter and exercise of such power with necessary degree of care and caution is another aspect of the matter. What has been found wanting in the entire exercise indulged in by the Depot Manager, was not that he does not have the power to place a Driver of the APSRTC under suspension, but he was found wanting in not taking the necessary precaution of verifying the facts before proceeding to issue the impugned order of suspension. The Depot Manager ought to have ascertained as to whether the writ petitioner was on duty and if so, whether he was on duty on a bus, which at one end of its destiny had at Jeedimetla or not. If the writ petitioner was not on the night duty on the appropriate day, the possibility of his occupying the rest room on the next day itself would not have arisen. Be that as it may, these are facts, which have to be established during the course of enquiry. The Corporation is entitled to conduct disciplinary proceedings against its employees. But for conducting the disciplinary proceedings, no employee need invariably be placed under suspension, pending such an enquiry. The necessity to place an employee under suspension would arise only when it is considered appropriate to prevent his access to any record maintained or to any witness, who is likely to depose against him. In the instant case, the entire record relating to the service of the writ petitioner is in the custody of the APSRTC. The only witness who can speak against him is the owner of the premises where the rest room is located. Such an individual has already changed his version the very next day itself. Therefore, there is no way that the writ petitioner would be able to either influence or prevent such a man from deposing against him. It is for the authorities to consider as to whether it is still desirable to conduct an enquiry without collecting any other material, as the statement of the owner of the premises appears to be unreliable. Therefore, I do not consider that the Depot Manager has exercised the power available with him properly or carefully, while passing the impugned order. Though placing under suspension per se would not be visiting an employee with any penal consequences immediately, but nonetheless it will have an adverse affect against his continuance in service. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order, leaving it open to the Depot Manager to make an appropriate assessment of the material gathered against the writ petitioner and if he is still satisfied that there is sufficient material against the writ petitioner, as a measure of discipline, he may proceed further by conducting an enquiry. But, however, for conducing such an enquiry, the writ petitioner need not be placed under suspension. Hence, the impugned order is set aside, while preserving liberty to the Corporation and its competent disciplinary authority to proceed against the writ petitioner by conducting necessary disciplinary enquiry. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ________________________ Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 13.07.2009 VGB