V. Srinivas v. The Vice Chairman And Managing Director,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.17086 OF 2016 ORDER:

The petitioner states that he is the Depot Secretary of Manthany Depot and his services as driver were regularized on 01-09-2013. He was representing the grievances of the staff and workers of C.I.T.U as union leader. While so, he was in the bus bearing No. AP 15 Z 0037 on route from Manthany to MGBS, Hyderabad to and fro on 21-04-2016 and plied the bus. However, on 29-04-2016, he was asked to attend the enquiry by the Deputy Superintendent (T), Manthany on 29-04-2016, 01-05-2016 and 03-05-2016. He asked the Deputy Superintendent to furnish the relevant documents in order to make his statement during the course of enquiry on 01-05-2016, but no documents were furnished to him and 01-05-2016 happened to be a labour holiday and was also a Sunday. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 06-05-2016 along with an order of suspension on the same day. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

2. The main allegation against the petitioner in the order of suspension is that on 21-04-2016, the bus, which was driven by the petitioner came to Manthany depot before the scheduled time. It appears that the conductor of the bus stated during the course of preliminary enquiry that in spite of warning and protest, the driver of the bus drove the bus before the scheduled time. A charge sheet was issued with the following charge:

" For having failed to operate the bus no. AP 15Z 0037 on 21-04-2016 as per MTD-141 i.e., arrived/reached one hour before 19.55 hrs instead of 20.55 hrs. which shows gross negligence and intense carelessness on part of your duties, which causes to made criticism from the travelling public against TSRTC and tarnished the image of Corporation, which constitutes to mis-conduct in terms of Reg. 28 (ix) (a), (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that MTD-141 deals with the duties of the conductor and the petitioner has to obey the instructions of the conductor. He has no choice except to obey the instructions of the conductor and on that particular date, the petitioner drove the vehicle with the consent of the conductor only. If there was any protest by the conductor, the conductor could have lodged

a complaint immediately then and there and in the absence of any such complaint, the suspension order is bad in law.

4. I called for the record and noticed that the conductor gave a statement on 22-04-2016, but no complaint was given. However, as the matter is under enquiry, this Court is not inclined to stall the enquiry. In view of nature of charge levelled against the petitioner, the suspension of the petitioner from service is not warranted. In the circumstances, the order, dated 06-05-2016 issued by the 2nd respondent suspending the petitioner from service is set aside. However, the 2nd respondent is at liberty to conduct the enquiry and take necessary action in accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J DATED: 06-06-2016 Hsd