IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17506 of 2008 Between: C.K. Sekhar S/o. Kuppaiah R/o. Kadapa, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director Mushirabad Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Region at Kadapa. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Depot, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in suspending the petitioner from service on the allegation of involvement in a Criminal Case filed by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner u/s 498 IPC vide Proc.No.M1/114(6)/2008-KDP, dated 16.07.2008 during pendency of the Criminal Case vide F.I.R. No: 13/2008 on the file of Kadapa Mahila PS, and issuing the charge sheet as illegal, without jurisdiction, unjust and arbitrary and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17506 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Depot Clerk in Kadapa Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He was issued a charge sheet, dated 16.07.2008, wherein it was alleged that though he was arrested in Crime No.13 of 2008 on the file of the Mahila Police Station, Kadapa, under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he did not inform the same to the Depot authorities. Relevant provisions were also mentioned. His involvement, in a matter of this nature, was also treated as basis of charge. Through a separate order of the same date, he was placed under suspension. The petitioner challenges the same and urges that departmental enquiry cannot be proceeded with, on the basis of the charge sheet, even while a criminal case is pending. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. The first is about the order of suspension and the second is about the proposal to conduct departmental enquiry into the charges. So far as the order of suspension is concerned, it is a matter of record that the petitioner was arrested in connection with Crime No.13 of 2008 and he was released on bail, after two days. The service regulations of the Corporation mandate that whenever an employee is in judicial custody, for a period exceeding 48 hours, he shall be liable to be placed under suspension. Apart from that, the petitioner is accused of suppressing the factum of arrest, by covering it under sick leave. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order of suspension. Coming to the permissibility of departmental enquiry, even while the criminal case is pending, it needs to be observed that the petitioner is facing a charge for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Departmental enquiry is proposed into these aspects also. The petitioner cannot be compelled to divulge his defence into these charges, even while the criminal case is pending. The mere fact that another charge is framed in the departmental proceedings to the effect that he suppressed the factum of arrest, cannot make much of difference. Therefore, there exists a legal impediment for the respondents, now, to proceed with the departmental enquiry. At the same time, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the situation and seek enhanced amount of subsistence allowance. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly allowed upholding the order of suspension, dated 16.07.2008, but directing that the departmental enquiry in pursuance of the charge sheet, dated 16.07.2008, shall remain stayed, till the disposal of the criminal case, instituted against the petitioner. It is also directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled for the enhancement of the subsistence allowance, till the resumption of the departmental proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 12.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17506 of 2008 Date: 12.08.2008 JSU