IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29481 OF 2010 Between: S. Bhoomaiah. - - - Petitioner. AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Zaheerabad Depot, Zaheerabad, Medak District and another. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29481 OF 2010 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India by the writ petitioner seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in proceeding to conduct departmental enquiry against the writ petitioner without supplying relevant documents which were requested by him to be supplied to him vide his representation dated 20-09-2010 in charge sheet No.02/95(24)2010-ZHB, dated 16-09-2010 on the file of the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to supply all documents to the writ petitioner before proceeding with the departmental enquiry in the interest of Justice. 2. The case of the writ petitioner in brief is as follows : The writ petitioner is working as Conductor in the first respondent Corporation in Zaheerabad Bus Depot, Medak District. On 06-08-2010, while he was performing his duty in a bus bearing registration No.AP11 Z 3027 on route Hyderabad – Bidar at Stage No.11, Sadasivapet, the Checking Officials inspected the bus and came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner had committed irregularities in maintaining the corresponding tickets and cash with him. He was kept as Depot spare on 07-08-2010 consequently. Subsequently, the first respondent based on the report of the checking officials issued a Charge Sheet on 16-09-2010 against the writ petitioner. Immediately after serving a copy of the charge sheet upon the writ petitioner, he made an application to the first respondent on 20-09-2010 requesting to supply relevant documents to submit his explanation and to defend his case effectively in the enquiry. But, the first respondent had supplied only six documents out of nine documents even though the remaining documents are very relevant. Further the first respondent nominated the Assistant Manager, Sangareddy as Enquiry Officer and got issued enquiry Notice vide Proc. No.A.M.(ENG)/94/2010, dated 15-11-2010. Aggrieved by the first respondent’s inaction to supply the relevant material papers, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-APSRTC. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that totally the writ petitioner applied for the supply of nine documents, out of which, only six documents were supplied to him and refused to supply the remaining documents without giving sufficient reason and also without passing any speaking order in that context and hence necessary direction may be given to him to supply the remaining documents, which are just and necessary to defend his case in the enquiry. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that necessary direction can be given for the supply of the said documents in order to proceed with the said enquiry. 6. The principles of natural justice demand that all the relevant 290 documents are to be supplied to the writ petitioner to defend his claim in the enquiry, otherwise it is against the principles of natural justice. 7. I have gone through the record including the corresponding charge sheet filed against the writ petitioner in the said enquiry. It appears that the said documents are relevant in the enquiry. Further, when he had applied for the documents, the Authority should have considered the same and passed a speaking order in that context. Further, it is suffice to give a direction to the authority to take necessary measures in this regard instead of holding the entire charge sheet as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to supply the documents as a condition precedent to proceed with the enquiry. Unless it is done, the proceedings would be void. No order as to costs. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J. Date.07-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOAHN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29481 OF 2010 December, 07, 2011 DSH