IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26736 of 2008 Between: S.B. Pasha, S/o. Late S.B. Salam, E.099396 APSRTC, Vanaparthi Depot, Mahabubnagar District, R/o. H.No. 39-106, Bandarunagar, Vanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Vanaparthy Depot, Mahabubnagar District 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahabubnagar 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the issuing of suspension order C.No. 01/114(3)/2008 WNPT Dt. 27-11-2008 on the 2nd respondent repot 25-11-2008, on more charge against the petitioner that he failed to intimate the respondent about his arrest immediately without conducting any prima-facie investigation, without knowing the facts and the petitioner helplessness to give intimation from the police custody, Family Court and Jail that Smt. Naseem Banu the ex-wife of petitioner was divorced on 28-7-2006 due to her illegal sexual relations with the dirver Riyaz Mahammed E.No. 209366 of A.P.S.R.T.C Vanaparthy, Depot, is as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law, violation of principles of natural justice, by setting aside the suspension order No. 01/114(3)/08 WNPT dt. 27-11-2008 issued along with the charge of same date and number, by granting all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MOHD.GHOUSEUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.26736 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the suspension order, dated 27.11.2008, suspending the petitioner from service as arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that, initially, he was appointed as a cleaner in the respondent Corporation in the year 1982 and subsequently promoted as Tyre mechanic. He married one Naseem Banu on 21.01.1985 as per Muslim law and rites in the presence of elders and wellwishers and, out of their wedlock, they are blessed with four sons and one daughter. As she was living in adultery, he gave divorce to his wife and, subsequently, she married another person. The petitioner further averred that due to lodging of a private complaint by his ex-wife Smt. Naseem Babu against him, which was registered as Crime No.223 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he was remanded to judicial custody on 19.04.2007 and released on bail on 21.04.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that before his remanding to judicial custody, he was not given an opportunity to speak and also to inform about the registration of the criminal case to the 1st respondent. Therefore, he submits that issuance of charge sheet, dated 27.11.2008, by framing a charge against him for his failure to inform the fact of registration of criminal case, arrest on 19.04.2007 and remand and his enlargement on bail, to the depot authorities in Crime No.223 of 2006 for the offences under Section 498-A, 323, 506, 406 IPC and Section 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and calling for his explanation in connection with the said charge within seven days of receipt of the charge sheet and further issuance of suspension order on the same day i.e., on 27.11.2008 suspending him from service with immediate effect, is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents – Corporation. The law is well settled that a charge sheet given to an employee, for alleged misconduct/misdemeanor cannot be quashed. The charges are matters of enquiry. When an employee is issued charge sheet, the only course open to him is to submit his explanation to the charges, which the disciplinary authority will consider. In the instant case, the respondents while issuing charge sheet have also simultaneously placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into the charges. The law on the aspect of suspension pending enquiry is well settled. It has been held in numerous decisions that suspension, pending enquiry, is not a punishment, and that an employee is placed under suspension pending enquiry, with a view to ensure that the enquiry is conducted in a fair manner. In fact, during the period of suspension, the petitioner would be paid subsistence allowance, and in fact, the impugned order of suspension also states so. In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation taking the pleas which he sought to take in the writ petition, within a period of one week from today, and if the petitioner submits his explanation, the respondents shall consider the same and take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law and the service regulations governing the employment of the petitioner. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 08.12.2008 v v