IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 11570 of 2009 Between: N. Ananthaiah, S/o. Late Chandraiah, Hindu, E-209101 of APSRTC Vikarabad Depot R.R. District, R/o. N.K. Pally Village, Mannaguda Post, Pudur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vikarabad Depot, R.R District. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring that the issuing of suspension order No. 01/95(10)/2009-VKB dated 28-5- 2009 without showing the facts from whom the petitioner collected Rs. 100/- towards carried unaccompanied luggage card board box and from what place, without any witness and evidence from the bus passengers and bus driver is as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India by setting aside the suspension order No. 01/95(10)/2009-VKB dated 28-5-2009 by granting all consequential benefits by issuing direction to the respondent to take the petitioner into service. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court at the stage of admission made the following O R D E R: Heard Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Conductor, calling in question the correctness and validity of the order passed on 28th May 2009 by the Depot Manager, Vikarabad of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), placing him under suspension, pending enquiry into the acts of misconduct alleged against him. It is stated that the bus conducted by the writ petitioner was subjected to a surprise check by the Travelling Ticket Inspectors of the Corporation and in the course of the check, they have realized that there was an unaccompanied luggage box lying in the bus, apart from 50 passengers travelling in the bus and that the writ petitioner/conductor has collected a sum of Rs.100/- for carrying the said unaccompanied luggage in the bus. On the basis of the inspection report filed by the checking Inspectors, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed mechanically and without application of mind by the Depot Manager, inasmuch as there is no prima facie evidence that the writ petitioner has collected a sum of Rs.100/- towards the fare for the unaccompanied luggage and that the instructions, which were issued by the Managing Director to the checking officials, have not been properly followed by them. The material that has been enclosed to the present Writ Petition is the suspension order and the charge sheet, both passed by the Depot Manager on 28th May 2009. To the charge memo, the Traveling Ticket Inspectors’ check sheet copy has been enclosed. From this material, it will be difficult for one to come to a conclusion that there was no prima facie material even before the Depot Manager for him to pass the impugned order, placing the writ petitioner under suspension. The writ petitioner has not disputed the fact that the bus conducted by him has been subjected to a check by the Travelling Ticket Inspectors and that they have filed the check report with the Depot Manager. So long as the check report contains adverse material against the writ petitioner and when once the Depot Manager applied his mind and considered that it is inappropriate to continue the writ petitioner in service, pending further enquiry into the allegations, as the propensity to indulge in ticket and cash irregularities cannot be reined in, the orders passed placing the writ petitioner under suspension, cannot be termed as illegal. Secondly, the so-called instructions, which were sought to be relied upon, while making submissions at the Bar by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, are not forming part of either the record or in any other form normally referable to at the Bar. Placing an employee under suspension, pending enquiry into the alleged misconduct committed by the said employee, is purely an administrative exercise. The rights of the individual are not put to peril in the process, excepting that the employee concerned will not be able to report to duty and perform his duties, as he was doing on day-to-day basis. During the course of suspension, an employee is bound to be paid the subsistence allowance and at the end of the disciplinary proceedings, if he is found not guilty and innocent of the charge laid against him, the entire period of suspension is bound to be treated as period spent on duty and accordingly regulated. In that sense, no rights of the employee will suffer a grave prejudice, but however, the order of suspension is likely to cause loss of esteem to the employees. It is considered as if that the conduct of the employee has been projected as blameworthy conduct during the currency of the disciplinary proceedings as well. However, these are all questions, which the disciplinary authority will have to keep in mind and consider as to whether an order of suspension is really warranted in the circumstances or not. If the Depot Manager were satisfied that if an employee is allowed to continue to perform duties and his propensity to repeat such errors of judgment, which would result in financial loss or revenue loss to the Corporation, perhaps the disciplinary authority would be perfectly justified and legitimate in exercising the power available to him, while placing an employee under suspension. Since there is no material available to come to the conclusion that the exercise of the power by the Depot Manager is either perverse or that would shock the conscience of the judicial mind, I refrain from interfering with the impugned order. I hope and trust that the disciplinary enquiry now initiated against the writ petitioner be accomplished duly following the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards contained in the Discipline, Control and Appeal Regulations framed by the Corporation, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three months. Similarly, it is equally open to the writ petitioner to impress upon the Depot Manager the necessity to revoke any such suspension order, if its utility has already out lived. The writ petitioner may be accorded time to submit his explanation on or before 30th June 2009 and the disciplinary proceedings be regulated accordingly. With this, Writ Petition No. 11570 of 2009 stands dismissed, at the stage of admission. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 15th June 2009 ksld A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Conduct) Reg.1963. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}