THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 32824 OF 2014 DATE: 17.11.2014 Between :
K.S.Nandam .….Petitioner And A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20 & another …..Respondents.
For Petitioner : Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao For Respondents : Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Standing Counsel for APSRTC < Gist:
> Head Note:
? CITATIONS: NIL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 32824 OF 2014 ORDER :
Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned standing counsel for the Respondent-Corporation.
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the order of suspension issued to the petitioner by the 2nd Respondent by proceedings No.01/197(28)/2014-WL-2, dated 24-10-2014 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, amounting to victimization, unfair labour practice, abuse of power and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and to suspend the said order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The brief facts relevant for considering the present writ petition may be stated as follows :
The petitioner is a Mechanic in the Respondent- Corporation and he is under the control of the 2nd Respondent. According to the petitioner, on 22-10-2014 one, Mr.K.G.K.Murthy, Helper, who was working under the control of the 2nd Respondent and was in the team of Special Maintenance Schedule of Super Luxury Bus ‘Indra’, came to him stating that the Indra bus bearing No.AP-29-Z- 2928 has to be dispatched immediately, as the passengers were stranded at bus stand at Warangal-2 Depot on account of failure of the bus of Warangal-1 Depot. The Helper Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy informed him that the service driver is pressurizing that the vehicle has to be taken out immediately. He also further informed him that the Mechanic of maintenance of the said vehicle had gone for lunch and therefore, to keep the image and reputation of the Respondent-Corporation, the said Helper Krishna Murthy requested the petitioner to attend the bus.
The petitioner’s duty was to maintain other vehicles and it was not his duty to check the said bus, as per the request of Mr.Krishna Murthy. However, the petitioner says that only in the interest of the Organization and not with a mala fide intention, he attended the bus and got it repaired. Thereafter, Mr.Krishna Murthy, Helper, opened the bonnet and checked the engine oil, fan belt and condition of hose pipes and also diesel leakages and thereafter, the vehicle was taken over by the service driver. While the bus was about to leave Warangal Bus Station, suddenly flames came out from the bonnet. The Driver stopped the bus and opened the bonnet and found a piece of handkerchief with oil stains in the bonnet and it is said to be the cause of flames from the bonnet. He immediately informed the authorities of the Respondent-Corporation. After the Bus was checked with the consent of the officials, it was allowed to proceed to Hyderabad.
Nextly, it is submitted that in spite of the statement made by the Helper K.G.Krishna Murthy to the officials of the respondent-Corporation that only at his request the petitioner attended to the bus, he was issued a charge-sheet and consequently the impugned order of suspension was issued to him. A preliminary enquiry was conducted, wherein the statements of Mr.T.Rajesh, Mechanic, Mr.K.G.K.Murthy, Helper, Mr.M.A.Saleem, Leading Hand and also the statement of the petitioner were recorded. In the said preliminary enquiry Mr.T.Rajesh, Mechanic stated that at the relevant time, he was having lunch at the lunchroom in the garage and he had not attended the Indra bus. In his statement, Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy, Helper stated that he maintained the bus and carried out his duties viz., checked the engine oil, fan belt and condition of hose pipes and also diesel leakages and found all of them intact and further stated that as his allotted Mechanic Mr.T.Rajesh was having lunch, he requested the petitioner to carry out Schedule-I maintenance to the said vehicle and accordingly the petitioner attended to the vehicle. It is further submitted that though the petitioner discharged his duties only in the interest of the Corporation and did not commit any misconduct, nor there was any dereliction of duty on his part, the petitioner was erroneously kept under suspension. The order of suspension, according to him, is selective, as the Mechanic Mr.T.Rajesh and the Leading Hand Mr.M.A.Saleem were not kept under suspension though they failed to attend on the bus and only charge-sheet was issued to them. Under these circumstances, he filed the present writ petition to set aside the suspension order.
The Respondent-Corporation filed counter-affidavit contending that the order of suspension is not a punishment and the petitioner has right to defend his case in the domestic enquiry, which will be conducted in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner where he can prove his bona fides and therefore the Writ petition itself is not maintainable. Nextly, it is submitted that the petitioner was not allotted to the maintenance of the Indra vehicle, but the petitioner attended the maintenance of the said vehicle at the request of Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy, Helper at the relevant time without knowledge of shift in-charge, Leading Hand and regular Mechanic, on the ground that regular mechanic of Indra vehicle service had gone for lunch. Nextly, it is submitted that while attending the maintenance of the vehicle Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy, Helper, put handkerchief inside the bonnet with oil stains which caused flames and the petitioner obviously is not at fault.
The version of the respondents is that the order of suspension is just and proper and in accordance with the gravity of the misconduct committed by the petitioner, there is no disparity in taking disciplinary action against the petitioner and it is only after taking into consideration the allegations and preliminary enquiry report, Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy, Helper and the petitioner, who are responsible for the incidence, are placed under suspension. So much so, the other employees Mr.T.Rajesh, Mechanic and Mr.M.A.Saleem, Leading Hand are also issued charge-sheets. Nextly, it is submitted that APSRTC is ensuring effective maintenance to all the vehicles and bestowing adequate attention to the prestigious vehicles like Indra and Garuda services in the wake of recent bus burning incidents for which RTC arranged fixation of vehicles to the Mechanics with regular monitoring of vehicle condition by the Shift In-charge, but, surprisingly, Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy, Helper and the petitioner attended the maintenance of the Indra vehicle without the knowledge of the fixed Mechanic and the Shift In-charge and sent the bus on line, though they were not allotted with the said vehicle. Nextly, it is submitted that strict discipline has to be maintained by the petitioner while performing his duty, but the petitioner without authorization attended to the Indra vehicle negligently and in a careless manner, the misconduct is a serious one and to maintain discipline in the Organization, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry. It is contended that under law, the suspension pending enquiry, not being illegal, cannot be questioned in the present writ petition. Further, it is submitted that the matter of suspension is left to the subjective satisfaction of the disciplinary authority and the court cannot advert upon the question as to whether the material is adequate or inadequate from its point of view. It is said that in the instant case the petitioner failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to the duty and therefore a prima facie case of misconduct is against him.
The issue to be determined in the present writ petition is, Whether this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution can revoke the suspension order passed against the petitioner.
The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of him is that absolutely there is no reasonable basis for framing charges against the petitioner, since he has not committed any misconduct as per the regulations of the Corporation. On the other hand, it is argued by the standing counsel for the respondents that by attending on the bus, which was not allotted to him, the petitioner, who is a Mechanic, exhibited the conduct of negligence, which resulted in flames coming out of the bonnet and therefore, he was rightly placed under suspension.
It is true that an employer has the discretion as to whether an employee can be placed under suspension or not. Normally, it is the subjective satisfaction of the employer whether to place an employee under suspension. However, in exceptional cases, this Court can interfere with the order of suspension and set aside the same, if it is unreasonable and causes extreme hardship to the petitioner. If the suspension is the result of colourable exercise of power, this Court can certainly exercise power of judicial review to interfere with the suspension order. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the Mechanic to whom the bus was allotted had gone for lunch at the relevant time and the passengers were demanding to move the bus. Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy, Helper was allotted to the said bus and it is also an admitted fact that at the request of the driver of the bus, Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy in turn made a request to the petitioner to attend on the bus, so that it can be moved at the appropriate time. The situation, therefore, prevailing at that time demanded to move the bus immediately due to the demand made by the passengers. The petitioner, who is also a Mechanic, positively responded to the request of Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy and attended on the bus. The crucial aspect, which requires to be considered in this context, is that the incident of flames coming from the bonnet is not the result of the petitioner mishandling the bus while attending the repairs, but it was on account of keeping a cloth piece inside the bonnet after repair was over, which was obviously the duty of the Helper and not the duty of the Mechanic. As rightly contended by the petitioner, since he attended the bus at the request of the Helper attached to the bus, the fact that he attended the bus without the knowledge of the fixed Mechanic is untenable. It also cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty of carelessness and dereliction of duty, as he did not commit any mistake or wrong in attending to the repairs of the bus. If at all there is any negligence, it is on the part of Mr.K.G.Krishna Murthy, Helper, for which the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension. This Court is, therefore, of the view that suspension order passed against the petitioner is illegal and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the proceedings No.01/197(28)/2014-WL-2, dated 24-10-2014 issued by the 2nd Respondent keeping the petitioner under suspension are set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed without any order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Date : 17-11-2014.
Note : L.R. copies to be marked.
B/o skmr