IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 22356 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Hussain S/o. Hafeez Hussain R/o. Nurkhan Bazar, Hyderabad - 24 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 20 2 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Executive Director, Hyderabad Zone, MGBS, Hyderabad-12 3 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda. .....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 appropriate writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring that the Suspension Order issued by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No. Peshi/444(1)/08-HZ, dated 04-10-2008 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, selective suspension, for extraneous reasons and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and grant all consequential benefits; Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner joined the services of the respondent Corporation on 6.10.1972 as Mechanical Supervisor and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Mechanical Foreman in the year 1981. He was further promoted as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) on 16.12.1987 and further promoted as Class-1 Junior Scale Officer (Depot Manager) on 9.8.2003. In this writ petition, he is questioning the order dated 4.10.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent - Executive Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad Zone placing him petitioner under suspension under Regulation 18 of the APSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1967 pending enquiry into the charges that he influenced the accountant and other connected personnel and created an alibi that auction was conducted on 22.6.2008 in which gold articles received as lost property were auctioned and he managed to show one Shankar, shramik as the person who purchased the ornaments in the auction though, in fact, no such auction was conducted. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 14.10.2008 suspended the impugned order. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation filed a petition seeking vacation of the said order along with a counter affidavit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondent A.P.State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Hyderabad. Even though the matter is listed at the interlocutory stage, with the consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal. It is mainly contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation that because of the interim orders granted by this Court on 14.10.2008, the authorities are not able to conduct enquiry and at every stage, the petitioner is trying to manage the witness and trying to tamper the records. If he is not suspended and continued in the same place, there is every chance of tampering the record and hence, his suspension is necessary to conduct the enquiry. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was suspended at the instance of the local trade union members who did not relish the measures being adopted by the petitioner in maintaining the discipline and in fact, he issued a charge sheet to the depot clerk on 23.6.2008 alleging that he failed to exhibit the details of gold items in the notice of auction place in the notice board on 18.6.2008 and failed to remit the sale amount of lost property to Sub Treasury Office. Since the depot clerk did not submit his explanation, he sent the file for conducting domestic enquiry on 10.7.2008. Without taking into consideration the action initiated by him, the 2nd respondent, in a hurried manner, placed him under suspension even though he is not at all responsible for the charges levelled against him. It is also stated that the Assistant Mangers (Traffic) have already submitted their reports disclosing that the depot clerk was responsible for not including the gold items in the auction list. That apart, on 1.10.2006 when the alleged gold ornaments were sent to the office, he was not at all working at that place and he was working at Badvel depot. Suspension pending enquiry, investigation or trial is interim in nature. Application of mind on the part of the competent authority is sine qua non for passing such an order. Before passing an order of suspension, the authority shall not only take into consideration the public interest but also take into consideration the facts and attendant circumstances as to how far and to what extent the public interest may suffer if the delinquent officer is not placed under suspension. In the instant case the petitioner submits that he was in fact, not working in the place on which date the missing gold ornaments were deposited in the depot and noticing the irregularities in conducting the auction, he himself issued a notice to the clerk and the Traffic Managers also submitted their report to the effect that the depot clerk was responsible for not including the gold items in the auction list. Since suspension pending enquiry is only an interim measure, and in view of the apprehension expressed by the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation that the petitioner may tamper with the records if he is allowed to work in the same place, both the learned counsel agreed for the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions. The respondent Corporation is at liberty to transfer the petitioner from the present place to any other place without suspending him pending enquiry into the allegations levelled against him. The enquiry initiated against the petitioner must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the officers in the enquiry without taking any adjournments. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.5.12.2008 msv