IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1430 of 2009 Between: N.R.S. Narayana S/o. N. Ramulu C/o. Innocent Prahlad Joel, Gen. Sec. & Representative, A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees & Workers Union, Regd. No.H-10, Door Nos. 11-4-288, 11-4- 288 & 11-4-77/78, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad - 500 061. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Ranigunj-1, Bus Depot, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. 2 The Enquiry Officer (Also known as Asst. Manager (Enquiries) Secunderabad Division. O/o. The Divisional Manager Secunderabad Division, Rathifile Bus Station Complex, Secunderabad - A.P. .....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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) declaring the action of 1st respondent in refusing the supply / furnish the relevant documents connected to the alleged charges of the charge sheet vide its No.02/62(48)/08-RNG.1 dated 21-10-2008 as per the Regulation No.12 [3] and Regulation No.15 of A.P.S.R.T.C. C.C. & A Regulations 1967 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ii) directing the respondents to supply / furnish the relevant documents other than the supplied as per the representation dt.30-10- 2008; iii) and direct the 2nd respondent not to insist the petitioner to attend the enquiry without complying the representation submitted at his end also. Counsel for the Petitioner:PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 1430 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 20-3-1980 and posted to Musheerabad Bus Depot. While he was working as a Conductor in Ranigunj Bus Depot, a Charge Memo was issued to him on the ground that he committed certain cash and ticket irregularities. Thereupon, he submitted letter dated 30-10-2008 seeking copies of the following documents, so as to enable him to submit written statement of defence to the Charge Memo. 1. A copy of my spot statementdated13-9-2008 2. A copy of Driver’s statememt dated13-09-2008 3. A copy of Eyewitness and Evidence, records and statements dated 13-9-2008. 4. A copy of Service Conductor’s Statistical Returns (i.e. S.Rs) dated 13-9-2008. 5. A copy of MTD 141 Route Course and Timing Chart dated 13-9-2009. 6. A copy of alleged passengers statements dated 13-9-2008. 7. A copy of other passengers statements dated 13-9-2009. 8. A copy of T.T.I.S’s Special Court, dated 13-9-2008. 9. A copy of Driver’s bus log sheet dated 13-9-2008. 10. A copy of complaint report dated 13-9-2008. 11. A copy of FORM 43/R, dated 13-9-2008 which was not supplied to me violating the INSTRUCTIONS of APSRTC by the checking officials at the time of issuing the Charge Memo dated 13-9-2008. 12. A copy of Preliminary Enquiry Proceedings and the report of nominated E.O. 13. A copy of police FIR dated 13-9-2008. 14. A copy of APSRTC F.I.R. dated 13-9-2008, 15. A copy of other Vehicle’s occupants and crew statements with available records and evidence dated 13-9-2008. 16. A copy of reasons that why I need not attend the depot premises ( during the suspension period) during the period of suspension 3rd poara SIXTH reference cited. 17. A copy of WAY BILLs dated 12-9-2008, 13-9-2008 , 14-9-2008 18. A copy of DESPATCH AND RECEIVING DC/ ADC’S Statements dated 130\-9-2008. 19. A copy of cash down particulars dated 13-9-2008. 20. A copy of Cash down particulars, dated 13-9-2008. 2. He submitted another representation dated 10-12-2008 requesting the Depot Manager APSRTC to furnish the following documents. (i) Carbon copy of other passengers statement dated 13- 9-2008. (ii) 30 passengers pass and Identity Card numbers with full addresses and with date of validity periods as per the Checking Official’s (TTI) of Rayadurg/HES; (iii) Cash down particulars dated 13-9-2008. (iv) How much penalty was imposed upon the ticketless passengers as per Motor Vehicle Act, by the Checking Officials (T.T.I.s ) of Rayadurg HES particulars. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not complied the requests made by him for furnishing copies of the documents and therefore, he approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus: i) declaring the action of 1st respondent in refusing the supply/furnish the relevant documents connected to the alleged charges of the charge sheet vide its No. 02/62(48)/08-RNG-1, dated 21-10- 2008 as per the Regulation No.12 (3) and Regulation No.15 of APSRTC C.C. & A Regulations 1967 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ii) Directing the respondents to supply/ furnish the relevant documents other than the supplied as per the representation dated 30-10-2008. iii) And direct the 2nd respondent not to insist the petitioner to attend the enquiry without complying the representation submitted at his end also. iv) And to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the Respondents. 5. Heard party-in-person and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Party-in-person submits that the documents sought for by him have not been furnished by the respondents and therefore, the respondents cannot insist him to participate in the enquiry. 7. Learned standing counsel submits that the concerned documents relatable to the charge Memo has already been supplied to the petitioner under letter dated 3-11-2008. 8. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents placed before me the entire case file to substantiate his contention that the documents relatable to the charge have been furnished to the petitioner. 9. A letter dated 3-11-2008 addressed to the petitioner reads as hereunder: “As per your letter dated 30-10-2008, it is to inform that the concerned documents pertains to the case were already supplied to you vide this office letter dated 3-10-2008 and you have acknowledged the same on 6-10-2008. Therefore, you are advised to submit your explanation immediately and the case will be sent to the Enquiry Officer for detailed enquiry and you can produce any evidence on behalf of your defence in this case before the Enquiry Officer”.. 10. The file placed before me also contains letter dated 3-10- 2008 where under Xerox copy of MTD-353 ( R), passengers statement have been furnished to the petitioner. I am of the considered view that the documents relatable to the Charge Memo have been furnished to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to complaint that the copies of the relevant documents have not been furnished to him. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 4th February, 2009. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 1430 OF 2009 4th February, 2009.