High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate direction or writ one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned order of suspension from service vide Proc. No. P1l1 14(1)12024- ACPT, dated 01 .11.2024 and charge sheet issued vide Proc. No. P11114(1)12024-ACPT, dated 2710912024 as illegal. arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Art. 14, 16, 21 AND 300A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties in the 3rd respondent depot by suspending the impugned order of suspension from service daled 0111112024 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fa ir play. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD I Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: lryRIT PETITIoN No.33388 of2024 Seeking to quash the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner from the service of the respondent Corporation vide Proceedings No.Pll tl4(t)/2O24-ACpT, dated Ot.tt.2024, arrd, charge sheet issued vide proc.No. pl l114(l)12024_ACpT, dated 27 .O9.2024, rhe present Writ petition is filed. 2) Heard Sri V.Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.Anurag, Iearned Standing Counsel appehring for respondents I to 3. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the petitioner was working as Deputy Superintendent (p) under the control of respondent No.3-Depot, based on an anonymous complaint, dated 20.06.2023, a Vigilance investigation was conducted by the Joint Director (Vigilance & Security). In the Vigilance Report dated 06.0I.2024, it was concluded that one Mr.M.Raja Shekar, Deputy Manager, Mr.M.John Sunder, Senior Assistant, of respondent No.3-Depot and the petitioner herein are responsible for misappropriation of funds and action was sought to be taken against them. But, respondent No.3 has placed the petitioner alone under suspension, which is nothing but based on discrimination as well as amounts to selective suspension by , I respondent No.3, who is also party for the allegations made in complaint d,ated 20.06.2023. Hence, respondent No.3 cannot act as Disciplinary Authori[r as he also stands on the same footing as that of the petitioner herein. It is further contended that respondent No.3 has no power to order preliminary enquiry as he is also party to the allegations in question and he has already submitted a letter dated 18.O7.2023 stating that there was no misappropriation. Therefore, the impugned suspension order cannot stand 1,o the scrutiny of the Court and prayed to set aside the same. In support of his contentions, reliance has been piaced on I(. Sukhen dar Reddg a. Strl:te of A.P.I. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that 4l since tlrere is a strong pima facie case against the petitioner for the charge of misappropriation of funds of Rs'37,2OO/-' he was rightly placed under suspension by competent authority and there is no illegality in issuing the impugned suspension order' Further, after submitting the Vigilance Report, dated 06'01'2024, tl:.e Preliminary Enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Manager (T)' Nagar Kurnool Depot, upon the instructions of respondent No'3' As per the Preliminary Enquiry Report, the petitioner was exclusively held liable for the charges, based on the statements of 14 members. As such, the departmental proceedings were initiated ' 1tss91 o scc 257 - =-ry /' -, by the respondents only against the petitioner ald he was alone placed under suspension in view of the gravity of the charges. Therefore, there is no illegality in placing the petitioner alone under suspension. Further, the Vigilance report also elucidates that severe action shall be taken against the petitioner. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner that placing him alone under suspension is based on discrimination, is false, untenable and does not have legs to stand on its own. It is further contended that the further allegation of the petitioner that respondent No.3 cannot initiate disciplinary proceedings as he is one of the involved employees is also untenable as the Vigilance Report reveals the name of Rajshekar, who was the then Depot Manager of respondent No.3 at the relevant point of time whereas the present disciplinary proceedings are initiated by some other authorit5r of respondent No.3 and not by said Rajshekar. Therefore, the learned counsel has contended that the enquiry initiated by respondent No.3 cannot be held to be bad in law and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5) Heard the learned counsel appearing for respective parties and perused the material on record. 6) A perusal of the material disclosed that, admittedly, on receipt of anonymous letter, dated 20.06.2023, a Vigilance Enquiry ,.--_.- I -l \ was conducted by the Joint Director (Vigilance & Security) and he submitted the Vigilance Report vide proceedings No.J.D(V&S)/ 114(L7l/2O23-HZ, dated 06.O1.2024 holding as under: "Therefore, it is requested to take * severe disciplinary action against Sri P.T.Kumar, 8.251815, Dy.Supdt(P), Achampet Depot for misappropriation of amount. * suitable disciplinary action against Sri M.John Sunder, 8.273414, SA(F), Achampet Depot for payment of amount without verifoing the bills and relevant documents. * suitable disciplinary action against Sri M.Rajasekhar 8.272205, the then DM, ACP| for laxity in supervision and replrt compliance." 7l From the above, it is thus clear that the Vigilance Authority has requested action against three individuals viz., Mr.P.T. Kumar, M.John Sunder and the petitioner herein. However, the petitioner alone is placed under suspension, which is nothing but discriminatory and selective in nature. Though the respondents have contended that the report submitted by the Assistant Manager (T) exclusively pointed out a strong prima facie case against the petitioner alone, it is to be noted that the respondents have overlooked the report of the higher authority i.e. Joint Director (Vigilance & Security), u,ho recommended action against _ _fl ,l 5- three individuals i.e. petitioner and two others, and placed the petitioner alone under suspension. 8) In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Sukhendar Reddg's case (referred stpra| has held as under: "7. Another vital fact which has come on record is that in the criminal case a number of senior IAS officers, even senior to the appellant, may be found involved, but nothing positive or delinite can be said as yet as the investigation is likely to take time. The matter is pending with the police since l-72-1996 when the FiR was lodged at Anakapalli Town Police Station. The investigation has not been completed although about two-and-a-half yelrs have been passed. We do not know how long it will take to complete the investigation. That being so, the ollicer of the rank of the appellant, against whom it has now come out that the disciplinary proceedings are not contemplated, cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period, particularly in a situation where many more senior offrcers may ultimately be found involved, but the appellant a-lone has been placed under suspension. The Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension. It cannot be permitted to place an olficer under suspension just to exhibit and feign that action against the officers, irrespective of their high status in the service hierarchy, would be taken." 9) In the instant case also, admittedly, the respondents have placed ghe petitioner alone under suspension leaving out the other \ I two .officers. In that view of the matter and having regard to the \ \ decisibn of the Honble Supreme Court in K. Sukhend.ar Reddg's -6- cd.se (referred supra), this Court is of the view that the impugned suspension order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 10) In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. However, this order does not preclude the respondents to proceed with the enquiry in pursuance to the charge memo dated 27 .O9.2024, issued to the petitioner. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no ordcr as to costs. N //TRUE COPY// SD/-P.PADMANABHA REDDY / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/ 'ht I \ l\- -lsEcirou oFFlcER

1. The Managing Director, .Telangana State Road Transport Corporation' Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, HYoeraDao' \ To, Mahabubnagar.

2. The Deputy Regional Manager (0)' TGSRTC' Mahabubnagar Region' 3. The Depot Manager TGSRTC, Bus Depot' Achampet' Nagarkumool District 4. One CC to Sri V. Narasimha Goud' Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri R. Anurag (SC for TSRTC) [OPUCI 6. Two CD CoPies TJ GJP qP( I / HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:1410212025 ORDER WP.No.33388 of 2024 S TA rC 1 v o / )) 1g rtB zflffi I D i) + Vr ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION I WITHOUT COSTS (e- t1 \z<-