IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17928 of 2008 Between: B. Narayana, S/o. Bheemaiah, E. 41769, APSRTC, HCU Depot, Sherlingampally, R/o. 27- 16/12/9, Behind Krupa Complex, Srikrishna Nagar Colony, Safeelguda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20. 2 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Chariminar Division, Koti, Hyderabad. 3 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, HCU Depot, Sherlingampally, Ranga Reddy 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 call for the records from the 2nd respondent and issue an appropriate Writ, order or Direction, particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of 2nd respondent in keeping the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings No. PA/114(1)/2008- DVM-CR, dated 7-8-2008 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, without jursidiction and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, by granting all consequential benefits, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17928 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Superintendent in the Hyderabd Central University Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. The Divisional Manager, Charminar Division, 2nd respondent herein, placed the petitioner under suspension, through order, dated 07.08.2008. It was alleged that the petitioner had used abusive language against a Junior Assistant of the Depot, by name Gangaiah. An enquiry is said to be contemplated on that. Reference was made to the preliminary enquiry report, dated 22.07.2008. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension. Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner left the oﬃce on 10.04.2008 at 17:00 hours, whereas the incident of using abusive language against the employee is said to have taken place at 18:30 hours. He contends that when the petitioner took exception on 08.04.2008 for the employee not attending duty at 10:30 hours and signing in the attendance register at late in the evening, he bore grudge against the petitioner and has lodged the complaint. He further submits that the second respondent has only yielded to the pressure exerted by the employee and his supporters. Learned Standing Counsel of the respondents has placed the entire record before this Court. He submits that the truth or otherwise of the allegation against the petitioner needs to be considered in the departmental enquiry and that the order of suspension does not warrant interference. On 07.08.2008, the 2nd respondent had issued a charge sheet, on the one hand and placed the petitioner under suspension, through separate proceedings, on the other. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he has used abusive language against the Junior Assistant, by name Gangaiah. Though this is not the stage to decide the truth of the allegation against the petitioner, the suspension of the petitioner is based upon the preliminary report, dated 22.07.2008. A perusal of the same discloses that the petitioner categorically pleaded that he left the oﬃce on 10.04.2008 at 17:00 hours. There was no rebuttal even of preliminary nature, for this statement. Further, a comparison of the contents of the written complaint submitted by the Junior Assistant, on the one hand, and his oral statement before the enquiry oﬃcer, on the other, discloses that there are certain discrepancies. In the written complaint, he himself has stated that the petitioner admonished him for his lapses in discharging the oﬃcial duties, whereupon he had retorted by saying that whether the petitioner is suﬀering from any high blood pressure, and that why he is crying in a raised tone. This part of the episode does not ﬁnd place in his oral statement. Further, the record does not disclose as to when the complaint was received by the Depot Manager, to whom it was addressed. If there is any element of truth in the allegation made by the employee, it must constitute the basis for the proceedings, under the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Attrocities) Act. It is not known as to whether any such proceedings have taken place. Under these circumstances, it is not at all desirable to place the petitioner under suspension. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 21.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17928 of 2008 Date: 21.08.2008 JSU