Telangana High Court
WP/19233/2004 of B.Y. Goud, Vs The Regional Manager, APSRTC, on 31 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 19233 of 2004 Between: B.Y. Goud, S/o. Narsaiah, R/o. Habsipur village, Dubbaka Mandal,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 19233 of 2004
Between:
B.Y. Goud, S/o. Narsaiah,
R/o. Habsipur village, Dubbaka Mandal, Medak District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Dubbaka Depot, Dubbaka, Medak District.
2 The Depot Manager,APSRTC, Dubbaka Depot, Dubbaka, Medak District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toIssue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus orany other appropriate writ declaring the suspension order No.M1/138(1)/04-DBK dt.1.10.2004 as illegal, selective and discriminatory and consequently set aside thesame.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD (S.C.FOR APSRTC)
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO.19233 OF 2004
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 01-10-2004 for thealleged incident that took place on 19-03-2004. Challenging the same, the presentWrit Petition is filed.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that immediately after the incident,the petitioner was not placed under suspension, because the disciplinary authoritythought fit that it was not so serious matter so as to place an employee undersuspension. But, erroneously after a lapse of 6 ½ months the petitioner was placedunder suspension.
On the other hand the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondentscontended that since the matter was placed before the disciplinary authority, thedisciplinary authority thought fit that it is a serious matter and therefore the petitionerwas placed under suspension. The suspension order does not call for anyinterference by this Court, since the same is suspension pending enquiry.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the security guard and drivers ofDubbaka Depot were assaulted by one Yezdani on 19-03-2004, but it came to lightthat the present writ petitioner behaved with indecent manner and abused andassaulted one Yezdani in the presence of mechanical staff on duty. It is alleged thatthe incident took place on 19-03-2004, whereas disciplinary authority passed theimpugned proceedings on 01-10-2004. If the allegations against the writ petitionerare serious in nature, then there would not have any bar for the disciplinary authorityto take action including the suspension of the employee immediately. But, afterlapse of about six months the impugned proceedings have been passed. As seenfrom the impugned proceedings it is seen that it is not a case where the material hasbeen placed before the disciplinary authority for the alleged incident. Therefore, forthe self-same incident that took place on 19-03-2004, the impugned proceedings have been passed. So, the impugned proceedings suffer from legal infirmities, suchas it does not contain any reasons for suspending the employee after the lapse of sixmonths from the date of the alleged incident.
Having regard to the above aspects, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugnedsuspension orders are set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceedwith the departmental enquiry. No costs.
____________
K.C.BHANU, J.
Dated 31-12-2004.
SKMR
To
1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Dubbaka Depot, Dubbaka, Medak District. Medak District.
2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Dubbaka Depot, Dubbaka, Medak District. Medak District.
3. 2CD copies