IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY THIS THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.30957 of 2014 Between: P.Mallikharjuna Rao . PETITIONER And APSRTC, rep.by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 2 others . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.30957 of 2014
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing charge sheet dated 22.09.2014 and keeping the petitioner under suspension by order dated 22.09.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the APSRTC (CC & A) Regulations and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 22.09.2014 alleging that he did not attend the duty on the said day. The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he was ready to attend the duty but his name was not printed in the duty chart and hence he did not attend the duty at the given time. Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was ordered and the petitioner was kept under suspension.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on account of the mistake committed by the Authorities, who prepared the duty chart, the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension and his suspension is arbitrary and illegal.
On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent corporation would submit that whether the petitioner willfully failed to attend the duty or not would only be revealed in the course of the enquiry and the suspension cannot be revoked.
I have perused the material available on record. The statement of the Controller reveals that by mistake, the name of the petitioner was not printed in duty chart on the fateful day. The version of the respondents is that the petitioner had knowledge of his duty timings, but he voluntarily did not attend the duty. Therefore, there may be some reasonable basis to call for explanation from the petitioner, but it does not warrant keeping the petitioner under suspension.
Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the suspension order dated 22.09.2014 is set aside and the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry proposed against the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 16.10.2014 Dsr