THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 482 and 579 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two Writ Petitions can be dealt with together, for, they arise in the common set of fact situation. Both the writ petitioners are working as drivers attached to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. They were booked for driving the bus from Picket bus depot to Bangalore on 06.01.2011. The writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 482 of 2011 was driving the bus when a squad comprising Travelling Ticket Inspectors (TTIs) checked the bus near about Jadcherla toll plaza and found the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 482 of 2011 to have collected Rs.336/- vide luggage ticket No. TN-A04106 dated 06.01.2011 for luggage of 250 Kgs. The TTIs found that the ticket was issued from the ticket issuing machine (TIM) bearing No. 6043. They have found that the luggage ticket bearing No. TN-A04106 to have been issued at about 22.58 hours. Therefore, suspecting that the writ petitioners were carrying luggage, for which it was not paid for, and only when they have spotted the TTIs, the luggage ticket was issued, an adverse report has been filed by them. Based upon the adverse report, the Depot Manager, Picket has passed two separate orders, one framing charges against the writ petitioners as a measure of disciplinary control and the other placing them under suspension pending enquiry into those charges. In these two cases, the writ petitioners are essentially concerned with the orders of suspension. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners very strenuously submits that the TTIs., when they board the bus for undertaking any check, were required to enter the time when they get into the bus and also enter the time when they get out of the bus. When it was examined, it revealed that the TTIs. in question have got into the bus at about 11.10 p.m. (23.10 hours), whereas deliberately the charge sheet and the suspension order refer as if the bus driven by the writ petitioners was checked at about 11.00 in the night i.e. 23.00 hours. This, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, has been resorted to, to make it appear as if the petitioners, upon sighting the TTIs. have booked the luggage ticket in question at 22.58 hours. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners would further submit that normally on a highway, the buses will be plying fairly at a high speed. In a span of 5 to 10 minutes time, the buses would be travelling and covering a distance of 5 to 10 K.Ms. Therefore, if the TTIs. have got into the bus at about 23.10 hours and the luggage ticket in question has been booked at 22.58 hours, it would be safe to assume that the luggage ticket would have been issued near bout 10 K.Ms. away from the place where the bus in question has been checked. Therefore, it is impossible for the drivers to know that too 10 K.Ms. ahead, the bus is likely to be checked. What the writ petitioners would submit is that after checking all the passengers thoroughly as to whether they have purchased the tickets or not and as to whether any luggage ticket has got to be booked, only thereafter, they realized that one luggage ticket for 250 Kgs. of freight has not been booked and hence, they have issued the ticket. This, according to the learned counsel, demonstrates the bona fide conduct of the writ petitioners. If the writ petitioners are prompted by any improper motives, they would not have booked the luggage ticket and brought the fare so collected to the books of account of the Corporation. It is, therefore, a case of non- application of mind or improper implication of the petitioners in a disciplinary proceeding and for that purpose, power available with the Depot Manager has been put to misuse. Suspension pending enquiry per se is not a punishment. It is a prerogative available with the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority, as the case may be. It is only a step-in- aid for conducting the enquiry. It was intended to secure that witnesses, who are willing to speak against the employee concerned, would not be influenced; secondly, it would also prevent any access being had to the records, which are likely to be brought before the enquiry officer. However, it must be remembered that every power has got to be exercised quite diligently and carefully. Merely because power is available to place an employee under suspension, such powers should not be invoked. Placing an employee under suspension is likely to cause an impact upon such an employee for two reasons: 1) he will not be able to receive his salary and allowances, which he would be normally receiving. On the other hand, he will be paid only subsistence allowance, which only represents a portion of his monthly wages, 2) it will also cause loss of esteem to the employee concerned amongst his colleagues. People will be viewing the conduct of an employee with suspicion and with disfavour. Therefore, the competent authority/disciplinary authority should have exercised the discretion available with them properly and on sound lines, before they proceed to place an employee under suspension. More importantly, in a manpower intensive industry like that of transport organization, placing under suspension an employee, who is utilized for operational purposes, will cause depletion of availability of competent hands. That will leave an impact upon the productivity of the organization also. That aspect also has got to be borne in mind by the Depot Manager. It is therefore, appropriate that while initiating disciplinary proceedings, every competent authority must necessarily exercise his mind as to whether it is really essential to place such an employee under suspension or not. If the material has already been gathered against such an employee and it is safely preserved, the question of the employee gaining access to such record would be very minimal, even if he is continued in service. Further, in a factual matrix existing as in the instant case, the question of influencing any witness, who is likely to depose against the interests of the writ petitioners herein, may not arise, for, the TTIs., who filed the adverse report, are the officials of the Corporation, who initiated action against the writ petitioners and therefore, the question of the writ petitioners influencing them may not arise. Above all, the disciplinary authority would realize that transferring the employee to at another depot would have sub-served the purpose. They would still be engaged to operate the buses without any hindrance and also simultaneously, the enquiry proceedings can go on. The chances of such employees working in a far off depot, either influencing the witnesses or gaining access to the record available at another depot, may not arise. These are all factors, which are required to be borne in mind by the disciplinary authority. The High Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not function as an appellate authority. It only functions as a judicially reviewing authority of an administrative decision taken by a statutory body. It is imperative, therefore, that the decision making process alone must be taken into account and consideration by the High Court, but not the decision per se. As was already noticed supra, an order placing the employee under suspension is a pure and simple administrative order and it does not have any quasi-judicial trappings even. Such an employee was not required to be put on prior notice. But, however, the administrative authorities are also required to bear in mind the relevant factors for exercise of their power. In the instant case, the whole situation could have been reviewed by a next superior agency, so that even if the Depot Manager, in his anxiety to protect the interests of the Corporation, has overstepped his limits, the same could have been corrected by the next superior agency. At the same time, the appellate authority will be able to devise ways and means of preventing any such suspected leakages of revenue of the Corporation also. Hence, I direct the next superior authority to that of the Depot Manager, Picket Depot, Secunderabad to forthwith review the orders passed by the Depot Manager, Picket against the writ petitioners herein on 13.01.2011, placing them under suspension pending enquiry. The decision considered appropriate be communicated to the writ petitioners within a maximum period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Depot Manager, Picket Bus Depot, who is the only respondent in these Writ Petitions, is therefore, directed to place the entire material before his next superior officer, within a period of three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 1st March 2011 Order copy be furnished in three days time. ksld