Telangana High Court

V.Devadas Adce.No.306716. vs The Telangana State Road Transport ... on 11 February, 2025

                                         1


 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                 WRIT PETITION No.3550 OF 2025

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

"...to call for the records from the respondent Corporation and issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Suspension Order issued by the 2nd Respondent vide proceedings No.P2/227(4)/- 2024-DM:KMR, dated 20.01.2025 keeping the petitioner under suspension in casual manner on mere suspicion without giving him an opportunity to submit his explanation to charge memo in stipulated time as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary to circulars issued by the Corporation arbitrary, discriminatory, amounts to unfair labour practice and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper...."

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the services of the

respondent Corporation as a daily wage Conductor in the year 1989

and his services were regularized with effect from 01.08.1994.

Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Depot Clerk

(ADC) and worked at various depots, including the TGSRTC Bhiknur

HPCL Outlet from 13.08.2024 without there being any complaint

from any corner. While so, on 16.12.2024, due to low fuel levels in

the MS and HSD Ground Tanks, the petitioner followed the

prescribed procedure to request the booking of a fuel tanker.

The tanker arrived on 17.12.2024, and the petitioner conducted the

necessary checks for dip and density, instructing the driver to await

approval before unloading.

3. While the checks were being conducted, the tanker driver, Mr.

T. Lingaswamy, mistakenly unloaded diesel into the petrol tank

(MS), instead of the diesel tank (HSD). Upon noticing this error, the

petitioner immediately halted the unloading process. The driver

admitted his mistake in writing on 17.12.2024. Despite the driver's

admission, respondent No.2 issued a charge sheet on 20.01.2025

and the petitioner was kept under suspension on the same day

without affording any opportunity to him to submit his explanation

as per the regulations of the Corporation without there being any

prima facie case against the petitioner. Challenging the said order

dated 20.01.2025, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Heard Sri A.K. Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent Corporation. Perused the material available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to

Circular No.C3/437(14N-I)/2022-OPD (M&C), dated 16.07.2022, it

is the duty of the Traffic Inspector-III to monitor the outlet's

operations with the assistance of two ADCs. As the only ADC on

duty, the petitioner was overburdened with responsibilities and the

failure to allocate sufficient staff contributed to the incident.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

verification report from the Accounts Officer and the Mechanical

Engineer confirmed that the fault lay with the tanker driver, not the

petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite

these facts, the respondent authorities issued a charge sheet dated

20.01.2025 with two charges against the petitioner, which reads as

follows:

"Charge No.1 "For having failed to check the pipe line connection while decanting the fuel from tanker and connection given from the HSD valve to MS ground tank instead of HSD inlet fuel pipe on 17.12.2024 at HPCL outlet, Bhiknoor due to which the HSD 800 liters. Mixed with MS in ground tank and sale of MS product for one week was stopped which shows your gross negligence in your legitimate duties which constitutes mis-conduct in terms of Reg.28 (ix) (a), (xvi) and (xxxii) of TGSRTC Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1963".

Charge No.2. "For having failed to monitor the decanting the fuel from tanker to ground tank on 17.12.2024 at HPCL outlet at Bhiknoor resulted to mixing of approx. 800 Ltrs. Of HSD to MS ground tank (Approx. 5000 liters) i.e., worth of Rs.6.24 lakhs was contemned which shows your gross negligence and resulted in serious loss to the Corporation, which constitutes mis-conduct in terms of Reg.28 (ix)

(a), (xvii) of TGSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963".

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

relevant portion of the suspension order dated 20.01.2025 reads as

follows:

"Since the case is very serious in nature, you are hereby placed under suspension in the interest of the public as well as Corporation with immediate effect under regulation No.18(1)(a) of TSRTC Employees (CC&A) Reg. 1967."

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

suspension order and charge sheet were issued to the petitioner

without conducting any enquiry, which violates the prescribed

procedure. As such, the learned counsel seeks to set aside

impugned suspension order dated 20.01.2025 and sought for

reinstatement of the petitioner into service.

10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent Corporation placed on record a copy of the counter

affidavit denying the writ averments and the relevant portion of the

counter at paragraph No.17 reads as follows:

"17. I submit that the Petitioner, as the authority in charge of supervising the decanting process, cannot evade liability on unsubstantiated grounds, especially while the issue is pending before the fact-finding authority Furthermore, notice is not required prior to suspending an employee pending an inquiry, as suspension is not a form of punishment. The primary objective of issuing a suspension order is to prevent the tampering of evidence Therefore, suspension orders are typically issued concurrently with the charge sheet, marking the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, no

legal grounds have been presented to this Honourable Court to warrant its interference, particularly given that the entire issue is presently under consideration by the fact-finding authority."

11. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation also

refers to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.668

of 2023, dated 11.07.2023. The relevant portion of paragraph No.6

reads as follows:

"6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that prima facie, the learned Single Judge could not have expressed any opinion as to whether the 1st respondent is involved in the said allegation or not since the said allegation can be ascertained only at the time of regular enquiry and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in suspending the suspension orders. Admittedly, suspension pending enquiry is not a punishment."

12. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the respective parties and also placing reliance on the

Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.668 of 2023, dated

11.07.2023, this Court is not inclined to set aside the impugned

suspension order dated 20.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2.

However, the respondent authority concerned is directed to

conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of four (4)

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. During the

course of enquiry, the petitioner must cooperate with the

respondent authority in concluding the disciplinary proceedings.

If the respondent authority fails to conclude the disciplinary

proceedings within the time stipulated by this Court, the impugned