THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.19849 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 Seeking to quash the order of suspension from service as well as charge sheet issued in common proceedings No.02/95/DS (62)11- SRPT, dated 07.07.2011 of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 2 The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the services of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) as Driver on 01.01.1990 and his services were also regularized on 01.10.1991 in the said post. While so, the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioner from service on 07.07.2011 and issued the charge sheet of even date consisting of two charges i.e. 1) the petitioner having permitted two passengers into the bus along with rice bags weighing 100 Kgs each and failed to issue luggage tickets; 2) For his misbehavior with the TTIs and for refusing to sign on the memo while conducting the bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 1027 on route Suryapet to Mumbai on 18.06.2011, which constitute misconduct on his part under Reg. 28(vi) (a) and Reg. 28(viii) respectively of APSRTC Employees’ (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 3 The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he along with another Driver were conducting the bus from Suryapet to Goregaon (Mumbai) on 18.06.2011. That the other Driver suggested him to go on rest as he would drive the vehicle from Suryapet to Zaheerabad and further stated that he would issue tickets to the passengers and the luggage and accordingly he was taking rest and when the bus reached Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, Hyderabad, the checking officials checked the bus and found that the co-driver had not collected the fare towards two bags of rice from one passenger. That to that effect the checking officials issued a memo to the other driver also wherein they clearly mentioned that since the petitioner was on rest, he i.e. the co- driver was responsible for not issuing the luggage tickets for the two bags, that however, when the checking officials woke up the petitioner and asked the petitioner about his name he stated his name as Mothilal, then the checking officials enquired the petitioner as to whether he belongs to Lambada community for which he replied positively, then the checking officials stated that the Lambada people would not respond properly as he did not wake up when they were checking the bus; then he requested them to kindly call him on his name but not on his caste. Subsequently, the charge memo bearing No.AO/1023976 dated 18.06.2011 was served on him in the 2nd respondent depot on 28.06.2011. Thereafter he was suspended from service. Hence the present Writ Petition. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was actually taking rest at the time when the checking officials checked the bus and there is no irregularity on his part with regard to issuing of luggage tickets and that the alleged misbehavior is not a serious misconduct so as to place him under suspension. 4 On the other hand the learned standing counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner used filthy language addressing the checking officials with loud voice and he also refused to sign on the memo and provoked the passengers against the TTIs and therefore, the impugned proceedings do not warrant interference. 5 It is not in dispute that the disciplinary authority has got power to suspend the employee if there is any prima facie misconduct alleged on the part of the employee. No doubt, it is not a case of cash and ticket irregularities. But as seen from the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner used filthy language against his superior officers and refused to sign on the memo and also provoked the passengers against the officials. It is totally prima facie insubordination on the part of the petitioner. 6 The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is discrimination on the part of the disciplinary authority in passing the impugned order of suspension and he relied on a decision of the apex court reported in Mansingh Vs. State of Haryana[1] in support of his contention. At paras 20 and 21 of the said judgment, the apex court held as under: 20. We may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power whether legislature or administrative or quasi – judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equals have to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action. The administrative action is to be just on the test of ‘fair play’ and reasonableness. 21. We have, therefore, examined the case of the appellant in the light of the established doctrine of equality and fair play. The principle is the same, namely, that there should be no discrimination between the appellant and HC Vijay Pal as regards the criteria of punishment of similar nature in departmental proceedings. The appellant and HC Vijay Pal were both similarly situated, in fact, HC Vijay Pal was the real culprit who, besides departmental proceedings, was an accused in the excise case filed against him by the excise staff of Andhra Pradesh for violating the excise prohibition orders operating in the State. The appellate authority exonerated HC Vijay Pal mainly on the ground of his acquittal by the criminal court in the excise case and after exoneration, he has been promoted to the higher post, whereas the appeal and the revision filed by the appellant against the order of punishment have been rejected on technical ground that he has not exercised proper and effective control over HC Vijay Pal at the time of commission of the excise offence by him in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The order of the disciplinary authority would reveal that for the last about three decades the appellant has served in the Police Department of Haryana in different capacities with unblemished record of service. 7 Ordinarily this court would not interfere with the order of suspension pending enquiry unless mala fides are attributed against the authority who passed the order or the person who passed the impugned order has no jurisdiction. But, in this case no mala fides are attributed against the disciplinary authority and it is not a case where the person who passed the impugned order lacks jurisdiction. Discrimination may be a ground to interfere with the impugned order. Dictionary meaning of discrimination is unjust and prejudicial treatment of different categories of people. The discrimination if any, can arise as between the persons who are similarly, if not identically situated. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the case on hand for the reason that in the said case basing on the evidence available on record there was discrimination among two persons with regard to punishment. But that stage has not come in the present case. Still the matter is at the stage of enquiry, which is pending against the petitioner. Basing on the evidence if punishment is given to one person and no punishment was given to other, then it can be understood there is discrimination. In this case evidence has not been let in before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has to conduct enquiry with regard to the alleged misconduct in accordance with the service conditions. Even the misconduct against the petitioner is not similar and identical with that of the other employee. 8 Therefore, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent and hence the present Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not be treated as a finding of this court and if any observation is made, it is only for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition and it is for the disciplinary authority to take appropriate decision uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. No costs. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J 15.07.2011 Kvsn [1] (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 331