IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9242 of 2008 Between: N. Narayana Murthy, E- 69122, Routine Clerk, S/o. Subrahmanaya Deekshitulu, Ibrahimpatnam depot, R/o. Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Krishna Region at Vijayawada. 3 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, City, O/o. Regional Manager, APSRTC, Krishna Region at Vijayawada. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ibrahimpantam, Krishna 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 will be pleased 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 insubordination and abusing the DM/R3 with filthy language vide Proc. No. M1/399 (1)/2008-IBM, Dt. 16-4-2008 and issuing charge sheet to as illegal, without jurisdiction, high handed action, unjust, and arbitrary and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.M.Subhan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri C.Prakash Reddy (SC for APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Routine Clerk in Ibrahimpatan Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 09.04.2008, he was called by the Depot Manager, the fourth respondent herein. He states that on account of acute stomach ache, he went to bathroom and afterwards when he went to the fourth respondent, he was scolded in an abusive language and threatened. The petitioner submitted a complaint in Ibrahimpatan Police Station on the same day against the fourth respondent. On 16.04.2008, the fourth respondent passed an order placing the petitioner under suspension. It was alleged that the petitioner had resorted to acts of indiscipline and had brought down the reputation of the Corporation, not only by causing nuisance, but also by filing a complaint in the Police Station. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension. Sri S.M.Subhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the fourth respondent passed the impugned order as a counterblast to the complaint submitted by his client in the Police Station and such a course is impermissible in law. He contends that even if the allegation made in the impugned order is taken on its face value, it cannot constitute the basis for placing the petitioner under suspension. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that an order of suspension cannot be interfered with and the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in it, needs to be examined only at the departmental enquiry. This Court would be rather slow to interfere with the orders of suspension, pending enquiry. The instant case, however, presented certain typical features. The petitioner is said to have entered the Chamber of the fourth respondent and the utterance attributed by the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is frequently calling him into the Chamber, he has seen number of Depot Managers in his past 30 years of service and if not there, he would do the job elsewhere. What appears to have weighed with the fourth respondent is that the petitioner submitted a complaint in the Police Station without any proper reason and thereby, he had defaced the image of the Corporation. It needs to be noted that the complaint made by the petitioner is against the fourth respondent himself and it is not for the latter to pronounce upon the validity or legality thereof. For all practical purposes, he figured as accused in the complaint made by the petitioner and he cannot take advantage of his own superior position to place the petitioner under suspension. Such a course would violate the settled principles of law and in a way, would lead to the situation where one of the parties to a lis becomes an adjudicator. Further, there are no serious allegations against the petitioner, much less, those relating to financial embezzlement. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the order of suspension is set aside. It is, however, directed that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner may go on, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}