IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28342 of 2007 Between: M.V.S.Reddy, E.750516, Driver, S/o. Appa Rao Reddy Visakhapatnam Steel City Depot, R/o. Komannapalem, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Visakhapatnam Region at Visakhapatnam. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam 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 violation of Conduct rules on the complaint made by the rival union member vide proc. No: P1/25(1)/2007- Maddilapalem, dt. 15.12.2007 and issuing charge sheet to as illegal, without jurisdiction, unjust and arbitrary and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is a driver in the Maddilapalem Depot of APSRTC. On 9.11.2007, an altercation took place between himself and another driver, by name P.A. Rao. Through proceedings, dated 15.12.2007, the Depot Manager, 3rd respondent herein, placed the petitioner and other employee, under suspension. The petitioner assails the orders of suspension passed against him. He contends that even according to the order of suspension, gravest possible provocation was caused by the other employee, whereas, the 3rd respondent has accorded equal treatment to both the employees. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, narrating the circumstances, that led to the issuance of the impugned order. Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the suspension of the petitioner as well as Mr. P.A.Rao was warranted, on account of a quarrel that took place between them, in the premises of the Depot. However, from a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that Sri P.A.Rao had used very objectionable, provocative and abusive language against the petitioner, more than once, in quick succession. The restraint maintained, on the part of the petitioner, is evident from the fact that he did not react when certain obnoxious comments were made against him. It was only when a very serious abusive sentence was uttered by the other employee, the petitioner is said to have reacted. Reporting of any insulting utterances of other employees to superiors, is no doubt expected from an employee. That, however, would depend upon the nature of provocation involved in the matter. This is not to suggest that there was justification for the petitioner, in resorting to the acts attributed to him. The effort is only to emphasize that suspension of a person, who used abusive, un-parliamentary and provocative language, as well as the person, against whom such utterances were aimed at, cannot be said to be a fair and good exercise of power. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It shall be open to the respondents, to go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings and take necessary action, depending on the findings that may be recorded in the domestic enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 4th April 2008 PAN