THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20992 of 2010. ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a driver who has been placed under suspension by the Depot Manager of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Nizamabad-II depot for certain irregularities said to have been committed by him. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was operating the bus between Banglore to Nizamabad on 24/25.07.2010 and that the bus has been subjected to check on 25.7.2010 at Ditchpalli and the following irregularities have been noticed: i) The bus was carrying 83 bags of flowers weighing 2000 kgs of freight booked through ANL parcel service even though the ceiling limit for carrying freight is only 500 kgs. ii) The petitioner was found to be carrying excess cash of Rs. 500/- in the cash bag. iii) The petitioner was also found carrying two cortons of Karnataka State duty paid liquor in the driver’s cabin under the seat contrary to instructions of the Corporation not to carry excisable goods in bus service. The learned Standing Counsel upon receipt of instructions also pointed out that there is 4th allegation against the writ petitioner that he has been absenting unauthorizedly from duty from 27.7.2010. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in so far as the 1st allegation is concerned it is improper to allege that the writ petitioner was responsible for carrying additional luggage of 1500 kgs. He would submit that commercial freight was booked by ANL parcel service and the revenue generated is shared by ANL service with APSRTC and as a driver of the bus, it is his responsibility to carry the commercial freight also. But however, he did not realise that the 83 flower bags loaded on the bus are weighing approximately 2000 Kgs. It is further contended that ANL parcel service collects necessary transportation charges for the commercial freight booked by it and as a driver, he is accountable to deliver the freight booked at the destination. He is therefore not concerned with collection of revenue for transportation of commercial freight booked through ANL parcel service. In so far as the excess cash is concerned, it is contended that for want of necessary change of currency, the 2nd driver who was carrying Rs. 600/- with him was asked to accommodate by parting with his money and Rs. 500/- which is lying in excess in cash bag does not belong to the petitioner but is the property of the 2nd driver. At the very spot itself, the explanation has been offered and further no passenger travelling in the bus or any other person did make any allegation that the petitioner has collected any excess money from them. Therefore, without any regard that the respective drivers are entitled to carry cash with them, a needless allegation is thrown against the petitioner. In so far as carrying of two cortons of wine is concerned, it is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is not an alcoholic beverage and for the personal consumption at the residence of the petitioner who was required to host a party in connection with a family function, he was bringing those cortons with him. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation would submit that these allegations are liable to be investigated into by the Corporation and for that purpose only, the writ petitioner has been placed under suspension and the Corporation is anxious to complete the enquiry as early as possible, at any rate, within six weeks time. Normally, an order of suspension which is passed by competent authority is seldom interfered in a judicial review exercised by this Court, where the C.C.A. Rules do confer the necessary power on the Disciplinary Authority/Competent Authority to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry but none-the-less such an order requires to be reviewed in terms of Regulation 18 (v) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. C.C.A. Regulations 1967. The very purpose of making such a provision in the Regulations is to ensure that the employees who are aggrieved by an order of suspension passed by the Disciplinary Authority/Competent Authority will have an opportunity to get the same reviewed by the same authority if not by a superior authority. The facts and circumstances which lead to passing of an order of suspension may have been in the initial stage or period, viewed seriously but however if relevant facts are brought out such a decision is bound to be reviewed from the stand point of view whether the facts and circumstances in their totality require an employee to be placed under suspension at all or not. Even though placing an employee under suspension may not be a punishment per se but none-the- less it will visit the employee with grave consequences. Some times, an order of suspension would produce de-moralising effect on the employee concerned. It is therefore appropriate that an order of suspension needs to be reviewed upon consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances, otherwise the opposite of the result will be produced from the exercise of placing an employee under suspension. Therefore, with a view to mitigate the hardship expressed by the writ petitioner in this writ petition, I consider it appropriate to direct the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad to forthwith undertake to review the order passed on 2.8.2010 by the Depot Manager-II, Nizamabad placing the writ petitioner under suspension duly taking into account all the facts and circumstances including the spot explanation offered by the writ petitioner with regard to excess cash of Rs. 500/- found in the cash bag coupled with there being no grievance or complaint from any of the passengers that excess money has been collected from them. Let the Deputy Chief Traffic Manaer, APSRTC, Nizamabad take an appropriate decision in the matter on or before 13.09.2010. It is made clear that the enquiry, which is initiated against the petitioner would be conducted duly following the necessary procedure as quickly as possible. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, within the next three days, which will be taken into consideration while reviewing the impugned order by the said authority. The writ petition stands disposed of with this order. A copy of this order may be despatched to the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad by the Registry within three days. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 31.08.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20992 of 2010. ORDER: Dt. 31.08.2010.