IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 14684 of 2009 Between: V. Yellappa Reddy, S/o. Appala Narasaah, APSRTC, R/o. Flat No. 13, RTC Colony, Madhuravadi, Visakhapatnam-41. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, Visakhapatnam Rural, APSRTC, Madhilapalem, Visakhapatnam. .....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 more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing the Memo No. 02/95(13/09-VSP) dated 16-03-2009 placing the petitioner under suspension as illegal, arbitrary, unjust without any application of mind contrary to the regulations and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court at the stage of admission made the following O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Conductor of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Depot Manager, Visakhapatnam on 16th March 2009, placing the writ petitioner under suspension, as the vigilance inspection undertaken on the bus conducted by the writ petitioner revealed that there was a female passenger travelling to Rayagadha without a ticket. The inspecting officials have found that the writ petitioner has issued the tickets to 31 passengers, who have boarded the bus at Parvathipuram and bound for Rayagadha. The only female passenger, who did not carry the ticket with her, has also boarded the bus at Parvathipuram. According to the writ petitioner, the female passenger gave an explanation that some male members, who are sitting in the bus in the front portion, would buy her ticket also. Believing her version, the writ petitioner Conductor did not insist her to purchase the ticket, but however, the said female passenger changed her version before the inspecting officials and informed them that she has paid the fare of Rs.23/- to the Conductor, but he has not issued the ticket to her. The writ petitioner submits that the Depot Manger, Visakhapatnam has passed the impugned order without proper application of mind to the fact situation prevailing. The case of the writ petitioner is that having issued the tickets to as many as 31 passengers, who have boarded the bus at Parvathipuram and bound for Rayagadha, he could not have missed out issuing a ticket to the female passenger, who was found travelling without a ticket. Unfortunately, these factual matters can only be appreciated during the course of enquiry or by an Appellate Authority. The order of suspension has been passed by the competent disciplinary authority. It is no doubt true that more than four months’ time has elapsed and the order of suspension has not been lifted so far. An order of suspension normally does not visit an employee with grave penal consequences excepting that he is prevented from discharging his functions and is paid only a portion of his salary and allowances, but not in full. The necessity to place an employee under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings would arise, to prevent his further access to record or prevent him from influencing the witnesses, who are likely to speak against him. In the instant case, the check report of the vigilance inspectors of the bus was very much available. The fact whether the cash in the writ petitioner - Conductor’s bag has been counted or not will be known only during the course of enquiry, but however, since four months’ time has elapsed, it would only be appropriate for either the disciplinary authority or if the writ petitioner prefers any appeal to the Appellate Authority against the order of suspension, such an Appellate Authority to take into account and consideration this factual situation and appreciate the same. The power of the High Court to interfere in matters of suspension is extremely limited. If the order of suspension has been passed by an authority, who lacks competence, the same is liable to be interfered with, but seldom, an order of suspension can be interfered with on the ground that the explanation offered by the delinquent employee is either plausible or acceptable. That is a matter, which squarely falls within the domain of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, I consider it appropriate to direct the Depot Manager, Visakhapatnam, who passed the impugned order, placing the writ petitioner under suspension, to suitably review the order or if the writ petitioner prefers any appeal to the Appellate Authority, such an Appellate Authority to review the entire matter and pass appropriate orders within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, the Writ Petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 22nd July 2009 ksld whoi ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}