THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NOs.6128, 7362 AND 7540 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Executive Director, APSRTC, placing the petitioners under suspension vide order No.E4/471(1)/2011-ED.KRZ, dated 03.03.2011, is without jurisdiction and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to discharge their duties. 2. Since all the writ petitions are connected to each other, they are being taken up for disposal together. 3. The Superintendent (Traffic), Assistant Manager (Traffic) and four Assistant Depot Clerks were placed under suspension by the Executive Director, APSRTC, Kazipet, for financial irregularities, lack of supervision and lack of proper verification of the amounts collected by the Conductors. Challenging the same, the preset writ petitions are filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.7362 and 7495 of 2011, vehemently contended that the petitioners are nothing to do with the verification of money each and every tray; that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners; that simply because a regulation is contemplated for suspension by an employee, it cannot be used for suspending an employee unless there is prima facie case of gross dereliction of duties; that on coming to know about the irregularities the Superintendent (Traffic), lodged a police complaint which is registered as a crime; that without conducting any Preliminary Enquiry the petitioners were suspended and hence, he prays to set aside the suspension order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.6128 of 2011, contended that though the other Assistant Depot Clerks are there, purposefully the present petitioners were suspended; that at best it amounts to negligence for not properly verifying the cash collected by the Conductors with reference to the tickets; that the case of misappropriation has been committed by one of the Conductors, it cannot be attributed to the petitioners; that the petitioners are not vicariously liable for the acts committed by the subordinates and hence, he prays to set aside the suspension order. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents contended that a Preliminary Enquiry was conducted prior to the suspension order; that there was a serious dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioners in not all supervising the cash transactions; that the fact of bringing to the notice of the concerned staff including all the petitioners about the irregularities found by the Accounts Officer during the course of Inspection, would clearly go to show that there was a serious negligence on the part of the petitioners in not properly verifying the money transactions with that of the actual sale of tickets; that in view of seriousness of allegations, the petitioners were rightly placed under suspension; that it is relating to a serious misappropriation of the amounts by the Conductors; that had the petitioners properly checked the sale of tickets with that of the money received by the Conductors, they would have detected the irregularities allegedly committed by some Conductors and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the suspension order pending enquiry. 7. Ordinarily, it is the appointing authority / disciplinary authority to take appropriate decision to place an Officer or Employee under suspension in the public interest or when the employees committed serious misconduct with regard to financial irregularities. Ordinarily, this Court would not interfere with the order of suspension pending enquiry or contemplated enquiry unless the malafides are attributed to the person, who placed the petitioners under suspension. As seen from the allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, no such malafides are attributed to the Executive Director of APSRTC, to place the petitioners under suspension. 8. Coming to the facts of the case on the information received by the competent authority about missing of ticket tray of one K.K.Lingam, Conductor of Warangal-I Depot, who was working at Kazipet point to issue tickets to the passengers of the non-stop services on route Hanumakonda-Hyderabad, investigation was conducted duly verifying the old auxiliary way bills issued to the buses by him wherein it was found that the tickets which were issued to the passengers travelling in buses were not accounted by the Conductor into the Depot account. 9. As per the initial report of the Accounts Officer, who verified the ticket tray No.135, it is found that all the tickets worth Rs.3,77,610/- and tray box were missing. Thereafter, the said K.K.Lingam, Conductor, reported sick w.e.f. 24.10.2010, and took the STAR document from the Depot on 18.10.2010 and did not remit the bus cash realized through sale of tickets to passengers upto 23.10.2010. The Depot authorities were unaware of the fact of remittance of bus cash by said K.K.Lingam. The said K.K.Lingam is in the habit of remitting cash once in a week and used to send the amount with Home Guards. The petitioners in W.P.No.6128 of 2011, who are the Assistant Depot Manager and Depot Clerks used to receive the bus cash without STAR documents and used to issue ticket blocks in the absence of Conductors. 10 Though there is a regular check of Statistical Return by the Superintendent (Traffic), i.e., the petitioner in W.P.No.7362 of 2011, she did not scrutinize the STAR document of booking conductors working in Kazipet and Hyderabad points. During the enquiry she admitted that she has not verified the STAR documents of booking points at Kazipet and Hyderabad. It was also revealed that the Conductors working in Kazipet and Warangal points were not remitting the cash realized through sale of tickets regularly. There is no control on the booking Conductors and nobody is verifying the ticket booking Conductors at Kazipet and Hyderabad points. The enquiry also reveals that the Superintendent (Traffic) did not physically check the ticket tray and simply signed in the register negligently. The Depot Clerks also did not verify physically after receiving the tickets amount from the Conductors. So, from the allegations in the charge sheet, though all the petitioners did not personally misappropriate any amounts, at the same time it is their duty to see that the amounts collected by the Conductors by selling of tickets are deposited to the credit of the APSRTC, and for that purpose they have to verify whether the sale of tickets and amounts collected are properly accounted for, and tallying with each other or not. 11. It is a serious misconduct on the part of the Conductors in misappropriating the amount to a tune of Rs.3,77,610/- by not remitting the amounts to the superiors. There is a serious negligence on the part of the petitioners in not properly supervising the acts and omissions of the Conductors. The Conductors who used to collect the amounts were in the habit of paying the amounts along with the ticket trays once in a week or at their leisure period. The petitioners, who are working as Assistant Depot Clerks are primarily responsible for not checking the trays frequently, and the accounts have not been properly supervised by the Superintendent (Traffic) and Assistant Managers, who have administrative control over the Assistant Depot clerks. Therefore, there were serious lapses on the part of the superior officers namely Superintendent (Traffic) and the Assistant Manager of RTC in properly supervising the accounts of the Assistant Depot Clerks, who are primarily responsible for collecting the amounts from the Conductors with reference to the tickets sold by them which resulted in temporary misappropriation of amounts by the Conductors. If this defect is not come to light, there is possibility of misappropriation of certain amounts by the Conductors, who used to receive the cash. Therefore, there is a serious negligence on the part of the petitioners in discharging their duties being the superior officers. They have not misappropriated the amounts as the amounts were allegedly misappropriated by the Conductors. The defences now raised are not available to the superior staff because they have every obligation cast on them to check the registers periodically and see that the cash collections received by Conductors are remitted to the RTC account so that the Conductors may not commit misappropriation of cash collections. Therefore, there is gross negligence on the petitioners in supervising the accounts of all the Conductors. Hence, the petitioners were rightly placed under suspension and that order needs no interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Any observation made in this writ petition is only for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions. Uninfluenced by any observation, the disciplinary authority shall conduct enquiry as early possible and take appropriate decision in accordance with Rules and Regulations of Corporation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 26, 2010 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NOs.6128, 7362 AND 7540 OF 2011 Between in W.P.No.6128 of 2011: B.Ashok and others. …PETITIONERS AND The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport and another ....RESPONDENTS Between in W.P.No.7362 of 2011: M.Usha …PETITIONER AND APSRTC and others. …RESPONDENTS Between in W.P.No.7540 of 2011: Y.Abraham …PETITIONER AND APSRTC and others. …RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NOs.6128, 7362 AND 7540 OF 2011 26.04.2011