THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NOS.25513 OF 2014 AND 25514 OF 2014 WRIT PETITION NO.25513 OF 2014 Between:-
P.Ramakrishna And …Petitioner The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Kakinada, East Godavari District and others.
…Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO.25514 OF 2014 Between:-
M.V.Reddy. And …Petitioner The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Kakinada, East Godavari District and others.
…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NOS.25513 OF 2014 AND 25514 OF 2014 COMMON ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for APSRTC., appearing for the respondents.
These writ petitions are filed for a mandamus seeking to declare the proceedings No.01/197(4)2014-DM-KKD, dated 21-08- 2014 issued by the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary, void and against the principles of natural justice.
Having regard to the issue involved for adjudication in the present writ petitions, they can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
The brief facts necessary for considering the writ petitions are that the petitioner in W.P.No.25513 of 2014 is the Conductor and the petitioner in W.P.No.25514 of 2014 is the Driver and they were on duty on 14-08-2014 to conduct the bus bearing No.AP28Z 3687 at 7.30 hours from Tamarada to Kakinada (via Samalkota to Peddapuram). They performed service in the first trip by going to Kakinada and came back. Thereafter, mechanical trouble occurred in the bus and as such, they handed over the bus in the garage for repair at 11.40 hours. The bus was again handed over to the petitioners after repair at 13.00 hours. The petitioners consulted the Depot Supervisor and informed that the bus was late and the Depot Supervisor instructed them to take the bus up to Peddapuram Ex-Stage 6 and gave STAR instructions.
Basing on the instructions of the Depot Supervisor, the petitioners took the bus from Kakinada Depot to Peddapuram (via Samalkota) and returned from Peddapuram via Samalkota to Kakinada. This is the version of the petitioners in their respective writ petitions. However, it seems that the Depot Supervisor of Kakinada gave a complaint to the first respondent stating that a complaint was received by him, which shows that the petitioners have not gone to Peddapuram via Samalkota, which amounts to misconduct as they have not followed the instructions issued by the Depot Supervisor. Basing on the aforesaid complaint, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their explanation, stating that the conductor issued two tickets of Rs.5/- to two passengers at Peddapuram and that a parcel luggage to ANL service at Peddapuram was also taken by him, later the bus proceeded the return 3rd trip to Kakinada. It is further stated that students with passes got into the bus and on the way to Peddapuram – Samalkota, the conductor updated the Tim. It is also the version of the petitioners that Peddapuram and Samalkota are very closely located and at Peddapuram MR College students having bus passes got in to the bus and on verification they have the passes and only two persons did not have passes and as such he issued two tickets till Ex-Stage 1. It seems that without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners, the first respondent placed both the petitioners under suspension by order dated 21-08-2014.
The question requires consideration in both the writ petitions is whether the suspension order can be set aside ?
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the suspension order was passed merely basing on the Tim Machine and the facts and material brought to the notice of the first respondent by the petitioners showing that the bus was operated to the stage at Peddapuram was not at all taken into consideration. It is further submitted that the charge is trivial in nature, which does not warrant suspension and therefore, the suspension order is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents-APSRTC., submits that the competent authority can place an employee under suspension pending departmental enquiry and this Court has to be slow in interfering with the order of suspension. He relied on the decision reported in K.Venkata Reddy Vs. APSRTC., Rep.by its Managing Director,
[1]
Hyderabad and others and Union of India and another Vs.
[2]
G.Raghavendra Rao and others . The Judgments relied by the learned standing counsel for APSRTC., cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Those Judgments were rendered by the Division Bench of this Court with reference to different set of facts. This Court would be slow in interfering with the suspension order passed by the competent authority in the course of pending departmental enquiry and it is also well settled law that suspension order cannot be passed as a routine and it has to be passed only having regard to the gravity of the charge and taking into consideration the public interest involved.
In the instant case whether the petitioners have taken the bus upto the stage of Peddapuram is a question, which has to be decided in the course of departmental enquiry held against the petitioners. Having regard to the trivial nature of the charge and as the explanation offered by the petitioners is reasonable, the suspension order is not warranted.
Therefore, the suspension order is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners into service forthwith and complete the proposed enquiry against the petitioners at an early date.
The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 2-09-2014 Shr.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NOS.25513 OF 2014 AND 25514 OF 2014 Date: 2-09-2014 Shr.
[1] 2009(4) ALT 540
[2] 2014(1) ALD 167 (DB)