Telangana High Court
WP/23874/2006 of B. Venkataiah, Vs The Depot Manager, on 22 December 2006
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND SIX P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA * * * WP.No.23874 OF 2006 Between: B.Venkataiah, s/o. B.Yellaiah, aged about 37 years, 0cc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)FRIDAY, THETWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND SIXP R E S E N TTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA* * *WP.No.23874 OF 2006Between:B.Venkataiah, s/o. B.Yellaiah,aged about 37 years, 0cc. Conductor,APSRTC Nagar Kurnool Depot,Mahboobnagar District. … PetitionerVersusThe Depot Manager,APSRTC, Nagar Kurnool,Mahbubnagar District & Anr. … RespondentsCounsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.AmarenderCounsel for the Respondent: Sri P.Vinayakaswamy THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
Writ Petition No. 23874 of 2006
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 writ petition is filed questioning the impugnedsuspension orders passed by the first respondent in proceedingsno. MO.02/95(48)2006-NGKL, dated 15-6-2006 on the ground thatthe petitioner committed cash and ticket irregularities on routeNagarkurnool-Ambatipally on 08-6-2006 and consequently to directthe respondents to re-induct the petitioner forthwith all otherconsequential service and monetary benefits and to pass such othersuitable orders.
The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as aConductor in the respondent-organization on 01-3-1991 and wasallotted to Achampet Depot. Thereafter, he was transferred to NagarKurnool Depot on 05-7-1997 and since then he worked as such inthe same post without giving any room of complaint whatsoever.While things stood thus, on 08-6-2006, while he was discharginghis duties and proceeding from Nagar Kurnool to Ambatipally nearYapatla the TTIs, namely, Mr.K.Ramulu and Mr.K.B.Chary boardedthe bus for checking the same along with five individuals andinstructed the petitioner to hand over the tickets tray and S.R. forverification. The TTIs further directed him to issue tickets to the fiveindividuals and accordingly the petitioner collected the amount butcould not issue tickets for the reason that they were seized by theTTIs for checking purpose. The petitioner was made to believe thatthe tickets are going to be issued by the TTIs, as they have punchedthe top of tickets to create impression that they are issuing tickets.Subsequently, after the checking was completed, they could not findanything against me and when nothing is found out, they issued amemo stating that he could not issue tickets to five passengers, whowere boarded into the bus along with the TTIs. When the petitioner protested the action of the TTIs they have forcibly taken away theamount of Rs.800/-, which was entered in the SR as his personalamount and manipulated the SR entries. Against the action of TTIsthe petitioner lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer,Nagar Kurnool and when he refused to receive the same, he filed aprivate complaint in Crl.MP.No.1414/2006 in CFR.No.1304/2006 inthe Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagar Kurnool andthereafter FIR was registered against the TTIs and others on 24-8-2006 for manipulation of SR and the said case is underinvestigation and it is pending for adjudication. Be that as it may, therespondents issued a charge memo dated 15-6-2006 calling for theexplanation of the petitioner. As against the said charge memo, thepetitioner submitted his explanation on 15-6-2006 denying thecharges framed against him in toto.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedstanding counsel for the respondents.
On a perusal of the impugned suspension order dated 15-6-2006, it appears that the petitioner committed cash and ticketirregularities and pending enquiry the petitioner was placed undersuspension. The impugned suspension order was passed on 15-6-2006 and this writ petition is filed only on 15-11-2006 i.e.,hardly five months after passing the suspension order. When thematter is pending adjudication, this court cannot direct therespondents to re-induct the petitioner into service, pending enquiryinto the matter. In the circumstances, the impugned suspensionorder is not a punishment but the suspension order is meant tocause necessary probe for the cash and ticket irregularitiescommitted by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I deem itappropriate to direct the respondents to expedite the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Nocosts.
Date:22-12-2006.NSR/ISL
___________________
N.V. RAMANA,
J