IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27060 of 2008 Between: R.R.Purushottam S/o.Sri Yesupadam R/o.Nuzvid, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Nuzvid Depot, Krishna 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.P3/95(16)/08-NZV dated 19.11.2008 of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Regulation of 18 of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27060 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 19.11.2008, passed by respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the alleged misconduct. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner is a Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’), respondent No.1. He conducted service on the route Nuzvid – Hyderabad from 27.10.2008 to 28.10.2008. In connection with the said service, a preliminary enquiry was held into the allegation that the petitioner collected a sum of Rs.78/- by selling Toll Plaza tickets numbering 26 of Rs.3/- denomination and failed to remit the same after he completed his duty. The enquiry officer, who conducted a preliminary enquiry, submitted his report, in which he inter alia stated that the petitioner has shown the collection of the amount in the statistical return and ticket record, but not in the Way Bill and that when the petitioner was questioned, he informed that, while counting the tickets sold, he forgot to include the Toll Plaza tickets therein and consequently he forgot to show the same in the Way Bill and deposit with the Corporation. The preliminary enquiry officer, on the basis of the evidence gathered by him, came to the conclusion that it was a case of irregularity, but the lapse may not be intentional. Purporting to act on the preliminary enquiry report, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension. Ordinarily, this Court seldom interferes with orders of suspension because, under service jurisprudence, suspension pending enquiry is not treated as a punishment. But the undeniable fact remains that an order of suspension casts social stigma on the employees. Unless an employee is prima facie found indulging in acts of serious misconduct, it would not be in public interest to suspend an employee. In the instant case, as noted above, in the preliminary enquiry, the enquiry officer has given the finding that the irregularity alleged against the petitioner may not be intentional. This finding may not be conclusive because it was only arrived in the preliminary enquiry. If respondent No.2 has thought it fit to initiate a regular departmental enquiry, this Court would not curtail his discretion in that regard. But in the face of the finding given by the enquiry officer in his preliminary enquiry report that the alleged irregularity committed by the petitioner is not intentional, I hardly find any justification to place the petitioner under suspension, because his continuance in office may not jeopardize public interest. Far from serving public purpose, needless suspension of an employee would not only results in financial loss to the employer, because in the event of his reinstatement, the employer will be liable to pay the entire monetary benefits without availing his services, but also affects the morale of the members of service. In my considered view, on the material available on record including the preliminary enquiry report, suspension of the petitioner pending enquiry causes more harm to public interest rather than serving public interest. For the abovementioned reasons, the impugned order is quashed. The petitioner shall be allowed to discharge his duty as Conductor pending enquiry into the charges framed against him. This order shall not be understood as this Court expressing any opinion on the merits regarding the culpability or otherwise of the petitioner which can be decided only in the departmental proceedings. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as indicated above, W.P.M.P.No.35450 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 12.12.2008 v v