The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned Order No. E2l'1 14 (16)12024- ED.KRZ, dated 191712024 issued by the 'lst respondent and direct the respondents to reinduct the petitioner to duty, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition :.ir-:i-si\ i I t' lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High Court ma,r be pleased to permit the petitioner to f ile the additional documents i.e , i e., (i) Letter issued by the Personal Officer dated 08.12.2015, (ii) Office Order issued by the Dy Chief Personal Manager, Karimnagar Zone, dated 22.09.2O15, (iii Letter issued by the Depot Manager, dated 24.04.2017, (iv) Office Order dated .,!.8.03.2017, (v) Letrer dated 08 07 202'l issued by Personnel officer, Warangal, (vi) Office Order dated 29.6.2021 passed by the Dy Chief Personnel Manager, Karinnazag Zone (vii) Pay Order'are the crucial documents for better adjudication of the above writ petition No 20444 of 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER *jlii+$,^ 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK W.P.No.20444 of 2o24 ORDER: The writ petition is frled with the following prayer: "To issue ar appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandarnus, declaring the impugned Order No.E2l|V(761/2O24-ED:KRZ dated 19.7.2024 issued by the 1" respondent as being unjust, arbitrary and non-application of mind and consequently set aside the same and hold that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated to duty as Accounts Officer with all consequential benefits".

2. Heard Sri Aj ay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents I and 2 arrd the learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearing for respondent No.3 and perused the record.

3. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Accounts Officer in the Respondent Corporation, he was placed under suspension vide Proceedings No.E2/l14(16ll2024-ED:KRZ dated

19.7.2024 based on the news clipping published in Sakshi Newspaper under the caption "RTC LO ADHIKARI CHETI VATAM" on 24.3.2024 and iater in other newspapers i.e. Eenadu and Prabhata Vartha. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner ald the 2 petitioner

23.7.2024 Submittedhisexplanationtothesaidchargememoon The learned counsel for the petitioner r;ubmits that the reasons mentioned. in the impugned suspension order do not attract the ingredients of Regulation No'18 of TGSRTC E nployees (CC&A) Regulations. It is stated that placing al employee un'ler suspension is almost a stigma and during the period of suspension' the incumbent is not permitted to work and fudher he will be paid only subsistence allowance, which is normally less than his sa1ary ar d suspension u'i1l have serious impact on future service of the emplo-ree' It is further stated that the petitioner was already transferred irom those piaces Ranga Reddy district and therefore there is and presentlY working rn of any evidence relating to the case' and no scoPe of tamPering moreover it is burden on public exchequer and that enquiry can go by posting the employee to elsewhere' Therefore' learlred counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to set aside the charge sheet/ suspension order dated l9-7 '2024' 4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent Corporation submits that the petition':r while working as Assistant Manager (F) at AO/WL office' Waranga ' a news item was published in Saakshi Newspaper with a caption 'RTC LO ADHIKARI 3 CHETIVATAM" and based on the vigilance report, the then Executive Director, Karimnagar has nominated Smt.p.Swapna Kumari, Deputy CAO/KR as the Enquiry Officer for conducting preliminary enquiry into the allegations made in the vigilalce report and based on the preliminary enquiry report, a charge sheet bearing No. E2 / | 14(16) / 2024-ED/KRZ dated 79.7.2024 was issued to the petitioner, duly placing him under suspension vide impugned proceedings dated

19.7.2024, pending a detailed enquiry. It is further stated that the petitioner being a frontline Supervisor of Accounts wing, had utterly failed to exercise efficient control on his subordinate staff causing abnormal delay in making payments pertains to private hire bills, arrears bills, settlements of deceased employees and is responsible for the irregularities occurred. It is also stated that the petitioner has to verify and enquire with the clerks about the pending cases and see that the cases are disposed of at the earliest, which he failed to do so. Further, the petitioner has failed to follow the instructions of Accounts Officer, Warangal with regard to pending cases and had not taken initiative to monitor the clerks to clear the cases, which resulted in long pendency of cases, which not only ruined the reputation of the Organ ization, but also created unrest among the employees. The petitioner is fully responsible lor long pendency of i I I 4 cases ard for delayed payments. Further, to give rmple opportunity to the petitioner to prove his innocence, the responrlents have already ordered a detailed domestic enquiry. Therefore, learned Standing Counsel prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petitio r.

5. This Court has taken note of submissions of 1:arned counsel for the respective parties.

6. Basing on a news item published in Saakshi Newspaper with a caption "RTC LO ADHIKARI CHBTIVATAM", a preliminary enquiry was conducted and basecl on the preliminary enqui y report, a charge sheet bearing No.E2l 114116)1 2O24-EDIKRZ dar:d 19.7.2024 was issued to the petitioner, duly placing him under suspension vide impugned proceedings dated 19.7.2024, pendrng a <letailed enquiry.

7. Now the point for consideration is: Whether this Court can interfere in disciplinary proceedings at the stage of charge sheet/charge memo al td whether the petitioner's suspension from service is justihed? In matters of suspension, the exercise of extra ordinary power of

8. judicial review vested with this Court under A:tic1e 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Scope of consi leration is limited 5 to the extent of examining the competence of the authority who places an employee under suspension; arbitrar5z exercise of power; selective suspension; alregations are frivolous/technical in nature; suspension was wholly unwarrantedi a,d there was no application of mind. In matters of suspension' each case has to be examined in the factuar back ground of given case.

9. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayanar, wherein the Honble Apex Court held as under:_ ,] lJ;,"", J'[:J.'X;';,il',:'i::l* a writ petition shourd not be entertained qt thqt stage the writ petttton ;;;"-;ii; u..o."^"ri".'i cquse no*ce does not orr"2 ,i.::#;:;i!:{iij,if i!:*'Ji;Ji;#,it":';*f *tri,i,-: r-otrce or cha-rge-sheet is tha ^"*'iit rg;yr,,g:*r;;.{ffi ff i:' i ffi ', ; :':i?. r- rr,r petition lies whei some ) co.use notlce or chq.rge_shc ontg when a final ordet fr17""i7!;gA '."o"no l-5 Writ jurisdiction i! quashing a showtause notlce or charge-sheet. 16. catr- quash , .r,"ig" without i"atalifii"").' ; ":-tl cause notice if it is /or I:*:u.., ordinariry rhe HiRh .s^o:: {emphasis supptieo'1 ard hence su ch - be exerclsed bg rare and excePtional ccses the High court "n..i"#ry otn".' )"i"o'n"y"rl"i:".;Zri; lr:;:{. r\ rr'5'r Lourt shouid not interfere in such a marter.- ;; ;;*;;;;i",iruo,"".iliilT,rj T*l;.,1?, No doubt, in some ur "e " ' (2006) t2 scc 28 \:""'-1 6

10. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Othrers v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdh2 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as un 1er: "12- Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to lhe cffect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challer ge as it does not adveisely affect thc rights of the dellnquent unless it is cslrblished that the same has been issucd b)'arl authorLt-v not competcnt to initirL e thc disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplioary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an iaitial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedi[gs are Eot liable to be quasbed oD the grouads that proceediags had beea initiated at. a belated stage or could not be concluded ir a reasonable period uuless the delay creates prejudice to the dellaquent eEployee. Gravity of alleged miscouduct is a relevaEt factor to be takeu into coEsideratioo while quashiEg the proceedinl.s." (emphasis supplied)

11. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to the jurtgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Stcte of Oy'.ssrz u, Bim;al Kurnar Mahantg3, wherein it was held as follows: '13. It is thus settled law that normally when an apPoirrting authority or the disciplinarl' authority seeks to suspend an employce, p:nding inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pendlng investigation into grave ch:ir';es of misconduct or defalcation of funds or scrious acts of omissron and commi ision, the order of suspension would be passr:d after taking into consideratio the gravily of the misionduct sought to be inquired rnto or investigatcd and :he nature of the evidence placed before the apporntrng authority and on appli( atioll of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority.or disciplinarr authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expc lient to keep an employee under suspension pendrng aforesaid action- ft wottld not be a.s qn q.d,ministrqtioe routine or q.n o:utomo:tLc order to susPena o.n emplogee. It should be on conslderatio^ oJ the grquttg of the Lllege,I raisconduct or the nature oJ the (rtlego'tlorr'.s imPuted to the dellnquertt emPlogee. 'f}]e Court or the Tribunat musl consider cach case on its own fat ts arld no general Iaw could be laid down in that behalf- SusPension ls not a pznishment but is onlg one o! Jorbtddlng or dlsabling an enqrrogee to disc\drge the duties of ollice or Post held bg him. In other wotds it ls to refr ain hitar to dodil Jurther opportunttg to Perpetrote the alleged tniscondr'tct or to remoue the lmpresslon a.mong the members o.f service thqt detellction of dutg roould pag Jruits and the ofJend.ing emplogee could get ctwqg even pending il,aqulry wlthout qng impedlnent or to Preuent on oPPortunitg to the d.ellnquent olJicer to scuttle the inqulry or lnvesti{tatlo[ or to wln_ 2 (2012) tl SCC 565 3 (1994) 4 SCC 126 7 : ouer the uitnesses or the d.ellnquent ha'ving hqd the oPPoftu^lty ln o.ffrce to lmpede the progress ol the l'.uestlg(rtlor. o7 l,1.q14lry etc' But as stated earliei, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelibte impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigatlon lt would be another thin8 if the aition is actuated by mata fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose' fhe fltspenslon ,,l.ust be q. step ln aid to the ultimqte result oJ the lnvZs gation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impacl of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry o. trial of a criminal charge " (Emphasis supplied)

12. ln Deputg Inspector General oJ Police a. R.S'Madhubabu4, the Division Bench of this Court held as under: '18. Havrng regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that ii-re iribunal ought not to have interfered.with the order of suspe.rsion passed by competent authority, particularly when the autholities haue got the power under Rule 8 of the APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 to place a'n emplolee undir suspension pending enqurry' All the aspects have to be gone into Uy ttre fact finding authority and the enquiry will disclose the truth and otherwrse of the allegitions. Further' it is settted preposition of law that suspension pcnding enquiry cannot be interfered with and the Courts can drrect only to conclude and complete the proceedings ln the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal instead of directinB the authorities to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent within the time frame. exceeded i[s timit and over stepPed its jurisdiction by directing the authorities that he should be transferred to a far off p1ace, which is impermissible under Ianv and unq'arrantcd As the task undertal<en by the Tribunal is impermissible under taw' the order passed by it suffers from various serious legal infirmities and therefore, the impugrred order is liable to be set aside." \

13. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective parties arrd on pemsal of the record, this Court is of the view that based on the preliminary enquiry report, petitioner was placed under suspension vi'de impugned proceedings dated 19.7.2024 and a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his ] I " w.p.No t86 of 2009, dated 05.02.2009 8 explanation to the said charge memo. Not ccnvinced by the explanation offered by the petitioner, respondentr; have ordered a detailed enquiry into the charges levelled against tlte petitioner and the sarne is still pending. It is settled law that suspension pending enquiry is not a punishment. Further, as the charges leveled against the petitioner are grave in nature and as the e aquiry is still in progress, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned charge sheet and suspension order of th: petitioner dated 19 .7 .2024.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ P:tition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this v,rit petition stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- SRI S. M;\LLIKARJUNA RAO SI STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER /- To, 1 a J 4 KKS SS s*1. //TRUE COPY// One CC to SRI AJAY KUMAR TUADISETTY A ^F \l cate [t)PUC] 't. One CC to SRI RANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Two CCs to GP for Services-|, High Court for the State cf Telangana at Hyderaba!. [OUT] PUCI Two CD Copies , 11.... .i-:rI ,/(o; ) o (.) c il,1; \c ($( s 1I JlJil 16 .) .-,\ HIGH COURT DATED:0410412025 ORDER WP.No.20444 ot 2024 I F I I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS "^\d"t