Telangana High Court
M. Shankar vs Tsrtc And Another on 9 November, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.36231 OF 2022
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Certiorari
to call for records and quash the impugned order of suspension from
service issued in Proc.No.P2/445(01)/2021-KG, dt.27.07.2022 as
arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and to consequently direct
the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all
consequential benefits to the petitioner.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are
that the petitioner joined the service of the respondent Corporation in the
year 1986 as a Conductor after undergoing the due process of selection.
His services were regularised with effect from 13.02.1988 and he was
promoted to the post of ADC in the month of February, 2013. It is
submitted that on the allegation that the petitioner though was allotted
scheduled duty from 19.00 hours to 03.30 hours at Oil Section on
21.07.2021, he left from the duty place at 00.30 hours on 21.07.2021
resulting in 75 litres of engine oil lying on the floor until the door
opened by S. Devanand, E.105545, Depot Clerk (Oil) on 21.07.2021 at
W.P.No.36231 of 2022
10.00 hours and also that the petitioner failed to maintain the handing
over and taking over register which shows his gross negligence towards
his duty, he was issued a charge-sheet dt.24.09.2021 and the petitioner
was placed under suspension with effect from 27.07.2022. It is
submitted that though the petitioner was placed under suspension after a
lapse of nearly 10 months from the date of issuance of the charge-sheet
and for the said charge-sheet the petitioner has also submitted his
explanation, the 2nd respondent has not taken any action as he was
satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner. It is submitted that in the
preliminary enquiry conducted at the instance of the 2nd respondent, it
was recorded that Sri Devanand, DC Oil and the petitioner were both
responsible for the incident. It is submitted that the petitioner alone was
kept under suspension as against the other person who was in complete
incharge of the oil section. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is
nothing but selective suspension which is opposed to public law. It is
further submitted that though the petitioner had sought for copies of the
reports of the Security Guard, Assistant Manager, etc., they were not
furnished to the petitioner till 07.09.2022 due to which, the petitioner
could not approach this Court immediately. He further relied upon the
Security Guard report dt.24.07.2021 to submit that the report was also
W.P.No.36231 of 2022
against Mr. Devanand and as per the report of the preliminary enquiry
officer, both Mr. Devanand and the petitioner were responsible for
shortage of oil of about 75 litres, but Mr. Devanand has not been
suspended. It is submitted that the petitioner has been victimised as he
was a trade union leader having been elected as Joint Secretary at State
Level for Telangana Mazdoor Union headed by Sri Ashwatharama
Reddy. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of K.Sukhender Reddy Vs. State of A.P.1, wherein in
similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the
discriminatory treatment and selective suspension of the petitioner
therein from service. He therefore sought for setting aside of the
suspension order.
3. Though notice has been served, the respondents have not filed any
counter affidavit, but the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent
Corporation has placed reliance upon the impugned order to support the
action of suspension.
4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the suspension order is dated 27.07.2022, whereas
(1999) 6 SCC 257
W.P.No.36231 of 2022
the charge-sheet was issued on 24.09.2021 and preliminary enquiry was
also conducted and a report was submitted on 01.09.2021. Since the
preliminary enquiry has already been conducted and the disciplinary
proceedings have been initiated to enquire into the charges levelled
against the petitioner, this Court finds no justification in placing the
petitioner under suspension particularly when the other person who has
also been held responsible for the shortage of oil in the preliminary
enquiry report has not been placed under suspension.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Sukhender Reddy
Vs. State of A.P. (1 supra) has considered the case of similar nature and
has held that in a situation where many more senior officers may
ultimately be found involved, placing the appellant therein alone under
suspension is not sustainable. It was held that the Government cannot be
permitted to place an officer under suspension just to exhibit and feign
that action against the officers, irrespective of their high status in the
service hierarchy would be taken.
6. This Court finds that in this case also, only the petitioner has been
placed under suspension, whereas the other person alleged to be also
responsible has not been placed under suspension. No action has been
W.P.No.36231 of 2022
taken against the other person who was held to be responsible in the
preliminary enquiry. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to
revoke the suspension order dt.27.07.2022 and reinstate the petitioner
into service. This order however would not come in the way of the
respondents in proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner pursuant to the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on
24.09.2021.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 09.11.2022
Svv
