G.C.S. Reddy vs Telangana State Road Transport ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3092 Tel

Telangana High Court

G.C.S. Reddy vs Telangana State Road Transport ... on 13 March, 2025

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                WRIT PETITION No.32331 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, quash the impugned order of suspension from service and charge sheet issued vide common Proceedings No.P1/227(08)/2024-V&SO/GHZ, dated 18.10.2024 suspending the petitioner from service and charge sheeting the petitioner as arbitrary, capricious, in violation of Art.14, 21 & 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice..."

2. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Ms.D.Sai Mahita, learned counsel representing

Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State

Road Transport Corporation for the respondents. Perused the

material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the

petitioner was working as a Constable at respondent No.3-

Depot, he was suspended from service vide common

proceedings, dated 18.10.2024 alleging dereliction of duty by

one N.Jagan (Head Constable), who was on duty, and the

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

petitioner as they failed to observe the unknown persons, who

theft the RTA seized vehicle bearing No.AP 39 QZ 2295 (KIA Car)

and left the depot from the main gate at about 16:20 hours on

08.10.2024. Upon receiving suspension order and charge sheet,

the petitioner made a representation, dated 21.10.2024,

requesting for relevant documents and respondent No.2

furnished the said documents on 05.11.2024. Accordingly, the

petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.11.2024 stating that

on 08.10.2024, his duty began at 16:00 hours and ended at

00:00 hours. However, the petitioner reported for duty at 16:28

hours and that fifty one vehicles seized by the RTA authorities

were available at the Depot. After signing the duty register at

16:28 hours, the petitioner sent a photocopy of the same to

respondent No.2 through his phone. The said photocopy shows

the reporting time was 16:28 hours. Therefore, the allegation

that the petitioner failed to prevent the theft of car at 16:20

hours, on the face of it, is unfounded. However, the theft car

was recovered on 20.10.2024 and is under police custody in

Hayathnagar. It is further submitted that the petitioner is on

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

verge of retirement and he shall retire on 30.06.2025 on

attaining the age of superannuation. Further, the records

furnished to the petitioner reveal that unknown persons met

N.Jagan, RTC Head Constable and the said N.Jagan allowed

these unknown persons to take papers that were kept in the

said car. The unknown persons then took the car from the

main gate at 16:20 hours when the RTC Head Constable-

N.Jagan, was not at the security gate. Therefore, the petitioner

should not be held responsible. Hence, learned counsel prays

this Court to quash the impugned common proceedings, dated

18.10.2024 in respect of the petitioner and direct the

respondents to reinstate him into service along with all

consequential benefits.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits

that the petitioner and N.Jagan both were placed under

suspension vide impugned common proceedings, dated

18.10.2024, as they were involved in dereliction of duties. While

they were on duty at 16:20 hours on 08.10.2024, RTA seized

vehicle bearing No.AP 39 QZ 2295 (KIA Car) was stolen by

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

unknown persons, thereby, they have tarnished the image of the

respondents-Corporation, which shows the gravity of the case.

It is well settled principle of law that the suspension is not

penalty as there is no severance of relationship between the

employer and the employee. Since the petitioner failed to

perform his duties as a Security Guard as per his allotted duty

timings and as there is a strong prima facie case against him,

the suspension is justified. Further, the petitioner himself has

admitted to have not joined the duty at the allotted time slot,

which itself amounts to misconduct. As per the petitioner's own

explanation, photocopy of the register will be shared soon after

reporting to the duty. However, the reporting time cannot be

pin pointed only by looking at the time when the photo is shared

by the employee/petitioner. The petitioner, only to escape from

the charges, has created multiple versions of his own

explanation showing different reporting times and different

working hours. To explain it in detail, the petitioner in his

explanation to the charge sheet has mentioned that his duty

hours start from 16:30 hours to 00:00 hours and he has

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

reported to the duty at 16:28 hours and contrary to the same, in

the Head Guards report register, the petitioner submitted that

his duty hours are from 16:00 hours to 00:00 hours and he

reported to duty at 16:30 hours. The contention of the

petitioner that he shared photocopy of the register at 16:28

hours and his reporting time is also at 16:28 hours is nothing

but crafting a lie to suppress the reality. It is further submitted

that the whatsapp group, to which the photocopy was shared,

was created solely for the purpose of checking attendance and

the time of signing the register when relieving is to prevent

employees from leaving early. Hence, sharing of photocopy do

not have any validity nor does not qualify as evidence to show

the reporting time. In the preliminary enquiry, it has been

brought to the light that the offence of theft has been committed

when both the petitioner and N.Jagan were duly present and

while they were on duty and even though, N.Jagan has allowed

the unknown persons into the parking spot, the commission of

theft happened while the petitioner was on the duty. Hence, the

disciplinary proceedings were initiated against both N.Jagan

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

and the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are justified in

placing the petitioner under suspension. Hence, learned counsel

prays this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. This Court has taken note of submissions of learned

counsel for the respective parties.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether this Court can interfere in disciplinary

proceedings at the stage of charge sheet/charge memo and

whether the petitioner's suspension from service is justified?

7. The scope of judicial review in a challenge to the initiation

of disciplinary proceedings is well settled in law.

7.1. In Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana 1, where

the employee challenged the charge memo dated 23.12.2003

and in the said charge memo, it was alleged that the employee

claimed reservation against ST roster point in the promotional

post, though he did not belong to said category. Instead of

replying to the aforesaid charge, the employee filed O.A., before

1 (2006) 12 SCC 28

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of

O.A. directing the employee to submit his reply to the charge

memo. Instead of filing reply, he filed Writ Petition before the

High Court and High Court allowed the Writ Petition. The Union

of India preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Relying

the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Executive Engineer,

Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh [(1996) 1

SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331], Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam

Ghouse [(2004) 3 SCC 440 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 826 : AIR 2004 SC

1467], Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore [(2001) 10 SCC

639], State of U.P. v. BrahmDatt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 :

(1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943], the Hon'ble Apex Court

held as under:

"...14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.

16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter." (emphasis supplied)

7.2. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others v.

Prabhash Chandra Mirdh 2 , the employee was served with

charge memo alleging that he demanded and accepted bribe.

Challenging the said charge memo, employee filed O.A. before

the Central Administrative Tribunal, alleging that the charge

memo was issued by subordinate to the appointing authority

and the O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal holding that the

charge memo was issued by authority subordinate to the

appointing authority. Writ Petition preferred on behalf of Union

of India was dismissed. On behalf of Union of India, appeal was

preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the said case,

relying upon previous judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court held

as under:

"...12. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject-matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent

2 (2012) 11 SCC 565

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings." (emphasis supplied)

8. The rational principles from the above decisions are:

(i) Ordinarily writ does not lie against show cause

notice/charge memo;

(ii) entertaining writ petition against show cause

notice/charge memo is dehors to the limit of judicial

review/exceeds the power of judicial review at the threshold;

(iii) issuance of show cause notice/charge memo, does not

adversely affect/infringe the rights of the employee; does not

amount to an adverse order;

(iv) normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the

conducting of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated

in the charge are erroneous as determination of correctness

or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary

authority. It would be premature to deal with the issues;

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

(v) in only very rare and exceptional cases, if it is found to be

wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason, if it is

wholly illegal, Court can exercise power of judicial review at

the stage of show cause notice/ charge memo;

(vi) discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be

exercised to quash charge sheet/ show cause notice.

9. Keeping in mind above principles, it is necessary to assess

the issue. The basic facts are not in dispute. It is also not in

dispute that RTA seized vehicle bearing No.AP 39 QZ 2295 (KIA

Car) was stolen by some unknown persons on 08.10.2024 at

16:20 hours.

10. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegations made

against him are unfounded as he was not at fault for

committing theft of the RTA seized vehicle and he was not on

duty at the time when the said vehicle was committed theft. A

perusal of the material on record would show that as per duty

allocation register the petitioner has to report at 16:00 hours

and as per his own version, he has reported to duty at 16:28

hours. It is the contention of the respondents that if the

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

petitioner reports duty in correct time, the vehicle would not

have been committed theft and thereby, the petitioner has

committed dereliction of duty without reporting his duty on

time. Whether the act of the petitioner in not reporting to duty

on time amounts to dereliction of duty or not can only be

determined after evaluation of evidence on record and not at a

premature stage. It is well settled that at the preliminary stage,

the Court cannot interfere in disciplinary proceedings. Whether

the petitioner failed to report to duty on time or there were

inconsistent statements in his explanation is a matter that

needs to be examined by the disciplinary authority during the

enquiry. It is for the disciplinary authority to determine

whether the charges against the petitioner are substantiated. In

exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution, this Court cannot undertake such an exercise.

The evaluation of the evidence is within the jurisdiction of the

disciplinary authority. Thus, the question of interference of

this Court in disciplinary proceedings at the stage of charge

sheet/charge memo does not arise.

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

11. The conduct, discipline, duties and responsibilities of an

employee in public service are governed by service

rules/regulations. On allegation of misconduct, employer is

entitled to take disciplinary action which may lead to

dismissal/removal from service. The power to suspend an

employee flows out of power to take disciplinary action on

allegation of misconduct. The conduct rules/regulations

delineate the power of suspension and competent authority to

exercise such power. When an allegation of misconduct comes

to the notice of disciplinary authority and in the opinion of

disciplinary authority that it is not desirable to entrust duties to

the delinquent employee while enquiry/investigation is in

progress/proposed, the competent authority may place his

service under suspension. Suspension of service results in

temporary withdrawal of duties and responsibilities of the

delinquent employee. During the period of suspension, the

relationship of master and servant subsists; the employee

continues to be on the rolls of employment and is not entitled to

take up any other assignment. He is still amenable to

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

disciplinary control of the employer for any other misconduct

also. He is only disabled from attending to his work. He is not

entitled to draw pay and allowances. For his sustenance during

the period of suspension, he is paid allowance which in normal

parlance called 'subsistence allowance'.

12. Ordinarily, an employee's services can be placed under

suspension in the following contingencies:

a) Where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or

pending.

b) Where the disciplinary authority was of the prima facie

opinion that the employee is engaged in activities

prejudicial to the interest and security of the State;

c) Where the case against him in respect of criminal offence

is under investigation, enquiry or trial;

d) Pending investigation/enquire into allegations, it is found

not desirable to continue the employee in service in public

interest;

e) Such continuation in service during pending

enquiry/investigation is likely to prejudice the

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

investigation, trial, enquiry; there is a possibility of

tampering of documents, influencing the witnesses, etc;

f) It is also permissible to suspend an employee if his

continuation is likely to cause/encourage indiscipline in

the organization.

13. In matters of suspension, the exercise of extra-ordinary

power of judicial review vested with this Court under Article

226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Scope of

consideration is limited to the extent of examining the

competence of the authority who places an employee under

suspension; arbitrary exercise of power; selective suspension;

allegations are frivolous/technical in nature; suspension was

wholly unwarranted; and there was no application of mind. In

matters of suspension, each case has to be examined in the

factual back ground of given case.

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

14. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to a case in Deputy

Inspector General of Police v. R.S. Madhubabu 3, wherein the

Division Bench of this Court has held as under:

"...18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of suspension passed by competent authority, particularly when the authorities have got the power under Rule 8 of the APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 to place an employee under suspension pending enquiry. All the aspects have to be gone into by the fact finding authority and the enquiry will disclose the truth and otherwise of the allegations. Further, it is settled preposition of law that suspension pending enquiry cannot be interfered with and the Courts can direct only to conclude and complete the proceedings. In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal instead of directing the authorities to complete and conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the respondent within the time frame, exceeded its limit and over stepped its jurisdiction by directing the authorities that he should be transferred to a far off place, which is impermissible under law and unwarranted. As the task undertaken by the Tribunal is impermissible under law, the order passed by it suffers from various serious legal infirmities and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside."

15. The principles that can be culled out are:

(i) The real effect of the order of suspension is that employee

continues to be a member of service of employer but is not

permitted to work and further during the period of suspension

he is paid subsistence allowance.

(ii) It would not be as an administrative routine or an

automatic order to suspend an employee and not to be lightly

passed. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to

the delinquent employee.

(iii) The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate

result of the investigation or inquiry.

(iv) The power of suspension should not be exercised in an

arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground, as

vindictive and in misuse of power.

(v) Suspension should be made only when there is a strong

prima facie case of delinquency.

(vi) Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the

mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings

unhindered.

(v) order of suspension can be resorted to pending further

investigation or contemplated disciplinary action only on grave

charges.

(viii) Competent Authority should take into consideration

relevant facts and attendant circumstances as to how far and to

what extent public interest would suffer if the delinquent is not

placed under suspension.

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

16. Having regard to the above principles, it is necessary to

consider the provisions of Regulation 18 of the TSRTC Service

Regulations. Regulation 18 vests power in the competent

authority (usually the disciplinary authority) to place an

employee under suspension pending investigation or enquiry

into grave charges, where such suspension is deemed necessary

in the public interest or if a criminal offence is under

investigation or trial. This regulation also provides guidance to

the disciplinary authority on when to resort to suspension.

17. This Court is required to note whether suspension was

resorted to enforce discipline; convey to all the employees that

dereliction of duty cannot be tolerated; to ensure that employee

would not create impediment in smooth conduct of enquiry and

in the larger public interest, it is necessary to suspend the

employee. This Court is required to see whether such power is

exercised not as an administrative routine or an automatic

consequence of alleged misconduct; whether there was careful

consideration of the issue and in right perspective and due

assessment of misconduct of employee.

PK,J Wp_32331_2024

18. According to the charge memo, there was theft of RTA

seized vehicle bearing No.AP 39 QZ 2295 (KIA Car) on

08.10.2024 while both N.Jagan and the petitioner were present

on duty at that particular time, thereby, they have tarnished

the image of respondent-Corporation. Though the said vehicle

was recovered on 20.10.2024, it cannot be said that the

allegation of dereliction of duty is not a gross misconduct.

When the allegation amounts to misconduct, it cannot be said

that the employee cannot be suspended. Whether the petitioner

had performed his duty in dereliction manner is the matter for

consideration in the disciplinary enquiry. Thus, this Court

does not find any error in placing the petitioner under

suspension.

19. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall

stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 13.03.2025 TMK