Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petitions at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners in all these writ petitions, being the mechanics working in the respondent-Corporation, having been placed under suspension through Ext.P1, filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent seeking reinstatement pending enquiry. Since all petitioners have got a common grievance against the same set of respondents, this Court disposes of the writ petition through a common judgment.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners were assigned a particular task by their superior officer but they allegedly failed to discharge their duties. Apart from being guilty of dereliction of duty, they are also said to be guilty of insubordination. Under those circumstances, proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the respondent-Corporation placed the petitioners under suspension through Ext.P1. Complaining of non-disposal of Ext.P2 appeal by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners filed these writ petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations contained in Ext.P1 supplying justification for placing the petitioners under suspension are trivial in nature. Even taking the allegations in their entirety, they do not amount to any major misconduct and as such there is no justification for the respondents to keep the petitioners under suspension. In any event the learned counsel has urged this Court to issue a suitable direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 appeal positively and pass orders therein expeditiously.
5. The learned Standing Counsel has strenuously opposed any relief being granted to the petitioners. She has submitted that the petitioners are guilty of not only dereliction of duty but, also of insubordination. Because of the petitioners' persistent disobedience to the orders of the superior authorities, the Corporation has suffered loss, which is in addition to the inconvenience caused to the passengers as well. The learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that the enquiry is well under way and there shall be no interdiction at this stage. Accordingly, she has urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition without entering into the merits of the case.
6. Indeed, this Court does not propose to entertain these matters on merit; suffice it to observe that the petitioners with whatever justifiability filed Ext.P2 appeal which is said to be pending before the 2nd respondent. This Court places on record its observation that placing delinquent employee under suspension is a necessary concomitant to the exercise of disciplinary power by the employer and unless the exercise of said power is tainted with mala fides, there shall be no judicial interference. Thus it is made clear that the respondent authorities shall proceed with the disciplinary proceedings by following the due process.
7. In any event, since Ext.P2 statutory appeal is pending before the 2nd respondent, it will meet the ends of justice if a direction is given to the 2nd respondent to consider the said appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioners seek an opportunity of being heard in person, the 2nd respondent may consider the said request.
With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE
sj