THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6439 of 2011 Date of Order:29.03.2011 Between: K.L.Narayanamma ..Petitioner and The APSRTC, Rep. By its Managing Director and another ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6439 of 2011 ORDER :- The writ petitioner was working as a Conductor in the APSRTC attached to its Depot at Avanigadda in Krishna District. On 03.12.2010, a team of Travelling Ticket Inspectors (hereinafter referred to as, “T.T.Is”) conduced a check on the bus conducted by the petitioner. At about 10:00 AM at stage No.17, Pamarru, they have noticed that the passengers in the bus were carrying tickets. A few of them were found to be carrying tickets of the denomination of Rs.30/-, apart from the tickets of other denominations. Suspecting that some of these tickets of the denomination of Rs.30/- were used by her in the earlier trip, a charge memo has been drawn on 06.12.2010 and served on her. It is alleged by the T.T.Is., that the petitioner has recycled four tickets of the denomination of Rs.30/- and, therefore, it is a case of cash and ticket irregularities committed by her. Based upon this adverse report filed by the T.T.Is., the Depot Manager, Avanigadda has passed two orders on 10.12.2010, through one order placing the writ petitioner under suspension pending enquiry and through the second proceeding, he has framed a set of ten charges against her. The first order placing the writ petitioner under suspension is what is being questioned in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri P.Sreedhar Rao, contends that the writ petitioner has not committed any irregularity. She has collected the correct fare from the passengers concerned and issued them the appropriate value of tickets and the T.T.Is., have drawn a trumped up charge three days later to the date of incident and served it on her on 06.12.2010, which itself reflects that there are no bona fides in the charges drawn against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the writ petitioner has not objected to participate in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her but for conducting the disciplinary proceedings, it is not at all necessary that the writ petitioner should be placed under suspension, pending any such enquiry. Per contra, Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would submit that because the passengers have hurried the bus to be proceeded without any further wastage of time as they have to catch up with their office timings, the T.T.Is., felt helpless on 03.12.2010. They have allowed the bus to be proceeded after seizing the record from the petitioner’s custody and issuing her a new record. The commuting passengers should not be put to any inconvenience and hence the T.T.Is. have taken a decision to allow the bus to proceed further. They have finalised the inspection report on the same day, but however they served it on the petitioner on 06.12.2010. Learned Standing Counsel would also contend that the main source of revenue for the Corporation comes from the sale of tickets to the passengers and hence no irregularity committed by a conductor in that regard can be countenanced. Learned Standing Counsel assures this Court that within a reasonable period of time, the enquiry would be completed against the petitioner. While examining the case for the purpose of determining the validity of the order passed on 10.12.2010 by the Depot Manager, placing the petitioner under suspension, it will not be proper for this Court to enter upon the merits of any allegations or lack of the same behind such allegations. Suffice it to notice that the T.T.Is., have suspected the petitioner to have re-issued few tickets of the denomination of Rs.30/-, which according to them were already issued in the earlier trip, the tenability or otherwise behind such an allegation would be known only after completion of the enquiry. If the writ petitioner is provided a fair chance and opportunity, she would be able to rebut any such allegation thrown against her. If the writ petitioner is not guilty of recycling the tickets, it would amount to improperly placing her under suspension. In matters of this nature, particularly when no statement has emanated from the passengers, the enquiry ought to have been completed by now. It is obvious that during the course of enquiry excepting the T.T.Is., and the record, which is already collected by them, no other material would be brought on record. More than three months time has already been consumed after placing the petitioner under suspension and drawing a charge sheet against her. Therefore, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondents to complete the enquiry against the petitioner, before the end of April, 2011 and based upon the finding at the enquiry, the Depot Manager, Avanigadda Depot would properly review the orders passed by him on 10.12.2010 placing the writ petitioner under suspension. It is needless to observe that once the enquiry proceedings are completed, the main purpose of placing an employee under suspension having already been accomplished, there may not be any further necessity to continue the petitioner under suspension. Let appropriate decision in the matter be taken by the 2nd respondent-Depot Manager and communicated to the petitioner no sooner the enquiry proceedings are completed. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of at this stage. No costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J March 29, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in three days {B/o Lmv}