K. Sujatha v. The Telangana State Road Transport

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.3750 OF 2017 Dated:06.02.2017 Between:

K. Sujatha, W/o. G. Narasimha, Aged about 35 years, Conductor (E-212485), Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Hayatnagar - I Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana Stage .. Petitioner And The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, rep., by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.3750 OF 2017 ORDER:

Heard. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2.

The petitioner challenges the order of suspension, dated 20.01.2017.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that conducting of check on the bus and the issues raised in the charge memo are contrary to the guidelines formulated by the respondent - Corporation with reference to the issuance of tickets within the city of Hyderabad. He further submits that the petitioner has not violated the circular instructions and therefore the disciplinary proceedings as well as the charge memo and suspension order are not warranted and there is no justification to place the petitioner under suspension.

4.

In the prayer, the petitioner challenges the order of suspension. It is not in dispute that the Depot Manager is competent to conduct enquiry and suspend the petitioner. The decision to place the petitioner under suspension is based on the report of the Travel Ticket Inspector, who conducted the check on the bus where the petitioner was working at the particular point of time. It is not a case where without any material on record, the disciplinary authority resorted to suspend the petitioner. Cash and ticket irregularities are serious allegations and if such an allegation is made, the disciplinary authority resorting to suspend

the employee cannot be termed as arbitrary exercise of power, at this stage.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since charge memo is already issued, the petitioner would submit explanation immediately and time may be fixed for completing the enquiry.

6.

Having regard to the said submissions, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of Writ Petition, the petitioner is given liberty to submit his explanation immediately and thereupon, enquiry shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of explanation. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:06.02.2017 KH