Judgment · High Court

Order

At the admission stage, in view of the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel

for the respondents, the writ petition is taken up for disposal. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated

09.03.2010, whereby the second respondent placed him under suspension pending enquiry on the ground that when an inspection was made by the Checking Officials on 20.02.2010 into the service bus bearing No.AP28 Z 3735 being operated on the route Visakhapatnam to Hyderabad, the petitioner, who was a co-driver of the said bus, was not available in the bus and absconded from discharging his legitimate duties. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not available in the said service bus on 20.02.2010 at the time of inspection, because he went to attend the nature calls, which cannot be a ground of absenteeism for the purpose of initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the other driver, who was examined in the enquiry, deposed the same fact, the second respondent passed the impugned order of suspension pending enquiry against the petitioner in a routine and mechanical manner. The disciplinary proceedings with regard to the employees of the Corporation are covered by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, framed in exercise of the power under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. As per Regulation No.18 of the said Regulations, the respondents are empowered to place an employee under suspension pending investigation or enquiry into the grave charges. Even taking the case as it is, having regard to the nature of the allegation made against the petitioner, it cannot be said that it is a grave one so as to invoke against him the power of suspension pending enquiry. With regard to the absenteeism of the petitioner, it is open to the respondents to conduct enquiry into the same but it cannot be said that the interest of the Corporation or investigating agency or public is involved so as to suspend him pending enquiry. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, it is open to the respondents to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. 26th MARCH, 2010. Note: issue c.c. in three (3) days. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J