HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.646 of 2011 Date: February 02, 2011 Between: G. Ramesh. … Petitioner And 1. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and anothers. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.646 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is preferred by a driver of the APSRTC questioning the orders passed by the second respondent-Depot Manager of APSRTC, Warangal-I Depot placing the writ petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. 2. Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and MS. Vijaya, learned standing counsel for the Depot Manager, Warangal-I Depot for the respondents. 3. In view of the order that is proposed to be passed by me, I do not consider it necessary either to admit this case or issue notice before admission. 4. The writ petitioner was performing duty on a bus which was travelling from Bangalore to Warangal. After it has travelled nearly 55 kms. of distance it appears one of the tyres has become flat and consequently the two drivers available in the bus, one of them being the writ petitioner, started making efforts for replacing the flat tyre with a Stepney which is available in the bus. In that process, the writ petitioner appears to have accidentally suffered a head injury requiring immediate medical attention. However, when the bus was checked, it was noticed by the checking officials that out of 19 passengers available in the bus, 16 of the passengers have been issued with tickets by the writ petitioner, while two other passengers are carrying reserved tickets with them and whereas one passenger did not have either a ticket nor did he tender any money towards fare to the petitioner. Because of this irregularity, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, in all fairness submits that the writ petitioner does not make an issue out of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him inasmuch as he seeks to establish his innocence in the matter before the enquiry. But however, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the totality of facts when taken into consideration, it would not warrant suspension from service. When an employee is placed under suspension, he suffers loss of esteem amongst his colleagues and he will be viewed with any amount of suspicion by the rest of the officials of the Corporation. This apart, for the first three months of the suspension, the employee will receive only 50% of the salary towards subsistence allowance and thus causing innumerable difficulties for the petitioner as well as his dependent family members to survive. When there are no allegations of gross irregularities committed by the writ petitioner, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the orders passed by the second respondent Depot Manager placing him under suspension pending enquiry are arbitrary and unjust. 6. While it is true that placing an employee under suspension pending enquiry per se does not amount to any punishment, but nonetheless it will have a serious impact upon the employee who has been placed under suspension. The writ petitioner was trying to explain that the bus was carrying passengers and the passengers were issued tickets after collecting the appropriate fare from them. When one of the tyres of the bus was found to be flat, the operation has to be stopped and both the drivers were attending to the work of replacing the flat tyre. Some of the passengers grew impatient and alighted from the bus to get into yet another service which will take them to the destination in quick time. While the petitioner and the other driver were busy in replacing the tyre, if any other individual got into the bus, the writ petitioner could not have been possibly blamed for it. If the writ petitioner has noticed the fact that one of the passengers did not purchase the ticket, he would have truly issued the ticket to him after collecting the necessary fare. In the instant case, the checking officials have found out that the writ petitioner has not collected any fare from the passenger who was not carrying the ticket with him. Therefore it appears to be a case of error of judgment on the part of the writ petitioner. 7. I therefore consider it appropriate to direct the writ petitioner to file a detailed explanation before the Divisional Manager, who is the superior officer than the Depot Manager, explaining the facts and circumstances leading to his suspension and the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Warangal, is directed to take a decision as to whether it is really warranted to keep the writ petitioner under suspension pending enquiry, particularly, when it was reported by the checking officials that the writ petitioner has not collected any fare from one of the passengers herein who was not carrying the ticket. The Divisional manager may take the said decision within one week from the date of receipt of representation of the petitioner. 8. It is needless to observe that for conducting a domestic enquiry, an employee need not necessarily be kept under suspension. Generally, suspension pending enquiry is only a step in aid for easy collection of adverse material against the employee concerned. If the Corporation has already gathered all the necessary facts even before the domestic enquiry was initiated against the petitioner, there may not have been necessity for placing the employee under suspension. 9. The writ petition therefore stands disposed of. No costs. _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: February 02, 2011 Note: Order copy be made available within three days. //B.O.// BSB