IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2138 of 2008 Between: S.V. Reddy, E-403781, Tyre Mechanic S/o SP Kasi Reddy R/o Rajampet, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC repby Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad/ 2 the Regional Manager, APSRTC., Kadapa Region at Kadapa. 3 The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer O/o Regional Manager, APSRTC., Kadapa Region at kadapa. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Rajampet, Kadapa 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 complaint made by a rival union member alleging quarreled in the premises vide Proc. No. M1/114(1)/08- Rajampet, dt 25-1-2008 and issuing charge sheet to as illegal, without jurisdiction, unjust and arbitrary and as such liable to be set a side in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as Tyre Mechanic in Rajampet Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. He submitted a complaint to the Depot Manager on 04.01.2008, alleging that one Sri.Y.U.M.Rao, a Painter in the same Depot had used filthy and abusive language against him due to union rivalry. A preliminary enquiry was caused by the Depot Manager and, ultimately, on 25.01.2008, the Regional Manager, i.e. the second respondent herein placed the petitioner under suspension. On the same day, a charge sheet was also issued. This writ petition is filed against the order or suspension, dated 25.01.2008. The petitioner states that it was he, who submitted a written complaint to the Depot Manager alleging that another employee had used foul and filthy language against him and instead of taking action against the said employee, the second respondent has placed him under suspension. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed stating that the petitioner, and an employee, by name Y.U.M.Rao, have created an ugly scene in the work-shop. It is stated that the union rivalry was exhibited by creating a very bad atmosphere and the work was stopped for one hour. It is stated that the departmental enquiry is in progress and no interference is warranted with the order of suspension. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. While admitting the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 05.02.2008, suspending the impugned order and leaving it open to the respondents to transfer the petitioner or the other employee, by name Y.U.M.Rao, to another place. The record discloses that an ugly situation was created on account of the quarrel by the persons belonging to rival unions. It was the petitioner, who submitted a complaint to the Depot Manager, alleging that the other employee had abused him in filthy language. The Depot Manager, in turn, caused an enquiry through Assistant Manager (Traffic) of the Depot. The Assistant Manager recorded the statements of the various persons and submitted a report on 08.01.2008. Even according to this, the altercations started after the other employee, by name Y.U.M.Rao, spoken insulting words against the petitioner during pooja. Therefore, it prima facie emerges that the petitioner played the role, more of a complainant-victim than of an aggressor. The objectionable conduct, if at all, on the part of the petitioner appears to be as a response and reaction. These, however, are matters, which can be gone into in detail during the domestic enquiry. This Court finds that the suspension of the petitioner is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In case his presence in the Depot is likely to cause any hindrance in the enquiry, the respondents can transfer him to any other near place till the conclusion of the enquiry. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that in case transfer becomes inevitable, both the employees, who were involved in the quarrel, must be transferred. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:27.06.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}