IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 11556 of 2009 Between: M. Gangadhar S/o. M. Ganga Ram, ADC., II - Depot, APSRTC., Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Coporation Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager - II A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad. .....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 a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i. declare the impugned Order No. E2/468(1)/09-DM:NZB-II dt. 30-5-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same. ii. consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, duly granting all other consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.VASUDEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been directed against the order passed by the Depot Manager, Nizamabad on 30.05.2009, placing the writ petitioner, who has been working as an Assistant Depot Clerk, under suspension on the ground that he has not participated in the enquiry, which was initiated against him, resulting in an ex parte enquiry to be completed. The fact that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated much earlier to the impugned order is not in dispute. The writ petitioner has not been placed under suspension pending such a disciplinary enquiry to begin with. The impugned order has left a distinct impression that the Depot Manager has chosen to place the writ petitioner under suspension on the ground that in spite of receiving the necessary intimation and message about the enquiry being slated to be conducted, he has failed to attend the said enquiry. It is asserted by the writ petitioner that the enquiry was posted to 26.05.2009 and it was accordingly conducted on 26.05.2009, whereas when he has taken ill on 26.05.2009, he has been examined by the Medical Officer attached to the A.P.S.R.T.C. Dispensary at Nizamabad and consequently, he was declared to be sick to attend to his duties with effect from the said date. He continued to receive treatment till 01.06.2009 and he was declared fit by the Medical Officer to attend his duties from 02.06.2009 and hence, his absence at the disciplinary proceedings on 26.05.2009 is neither willful nor wanton, but is entirely due to his becoming sick and being declared unfit to attend to duties. The writ petitioner could not have produced the sick certificate before the authorities concerned till such time he is declared fit to resume his duties again. As could be seen from the certificate issued by the Medical Officer, the writ petitioner was declared fit to resume duties only with effect from 02.06.2009. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed without having any regard to the fact that the writ petitioner has been declared sick and unfit for performing his duties and he was declared fit only on 02.06.2009. I consider that this is an eminently fit case where the Depot Manager is required to re-consider the entire exercise and pass appropriate orders within one week, duly taking into account and consideration the fact that the writ petitioner has been declared sick and unfit to perform duties from 26.05.2009 up to 02.06.2009. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. __________________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 22nd June 2009. lmv/ksld THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11556 of 2009 22-06-2009 lmv